Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
cleaning coronoa virus

DISINFECTION DURING MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER

If you live in a Strata Property, can you demand your Management to clean up areas suspected to be infected with the outbreak of corona virus?

“Yes, if the area is the common propriety.”

Coronavirus Pandemic. A disinfector in a protective suit and mask sprays disinfectants in the room. Protection of COVID-19 disease. Prevention of spreading pneumonia virus with surfaces we touch.

This is because Regulation 3 of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 (“SMR 2015”) requires the management to manage and maintain common property to reasonable standards of safety and health for the convenience, comfort and enjoyment of the proprietors and occupiers. If the infected area is the common property which would affect the safety and health of the proprietors or occupiers, you may demand for the area to be cleaned up.However, if the area is not the common propriety, a complaint may be lodged to the National Security Council or Health Ministry.This is because Section 18(1)(c) of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Disease Act 1988 (“PCIDA1988”) allows the authorised officer to “disinfect, disinsect and derat” a premise. The authorized officer can do so if he has reason to believe there has been person with an infectious disease on the premises or that this will lead to outbreak or spread of any infectious disease.

The authorised officer may also order the Management to clean up the area. Sections 9(2)(e), 21(1)(e) and 59(1)(e) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”) requires the management to comply with the order of the authority.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
1 January ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us