Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CAR PARK – RENT OUT TO THIRD PARTY, PROPERTY LAW – STRATA TITLE – COMMON PROPERTY

I am a committee member of Trump Tower Management Corporation (“MC”). We realized the developer has recently sold 15 units of condominium with 60 car parks to its related company. The related company was renting the carpark to third parties. Is this permissible?

No.

  • Car parks or accessory parcels must be used in conjunction with the units or main parcels. Carparks cannot be rented out to different individuals than the tenant of the units or parcels.
  • The Strata Titles Act 1985 (“STA 1985”) prohibits commercial usage of car parks to generate income for the related company or for car park rental business.
  • The sale and purchase of the accessory car parks parcels (“SPA”) is unlawful and void.

What can the MC do?

The MC can seek a declaration from the court pronouncing that the SPA is void. The MC can seek an order from the court to pronounce that the

accessory car parks parcels are common properties. These car parks will be reverted to the management of the MC. The court may also declare that the titles was obtained by the related company of the developer via insufficient or void instrument. Therefore, such car parks will no longer be accessory parcels in the strata title transferred to the related company of the developer.

Case in point: Ideal Advantage Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Palm Spring @ Damansara & Another Appeal [2020] 4 MLJ 93 Putrajaya Court of Appeal nos W-02(NCVC)(W)-138-01 of 2018 and W-02(NCVC)(W)-151-01 of 2018

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们