Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) ACT 2020

What is Covid-19 Act 2020?
It is a written law to provide temporary measures in reducing the negative impacts of Covid-19 pandemic to individuals and companies.

When did Covid-19 Act 2020 come into force?
23 October 2020.

 What is in the Covid-19 Act 2020?

  1. LIMITATION ACT 1953

The Covid-19 Act extended time limitation to commence legal action. Any limitation period which expires from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be extended to 31.12.2020. For example:

Q: I have loaned RM10,000.00 to A on 2.8.2014. A refuses to return me the money. When is the last day I can sue A?

A: Before the commencement of the Covid-19 Act, the last day for you to sue A is on 1.8.2020 (6 years limitation period applies). However, you now have until 31.12.2020 to sue A.

  1. INSOLVENCY ACT 1967

The Covid-19 Act increases the threshold to commence bankruptcy petition from RM50,000.00 to RM100,000.00. For example:

Q: I owe the bank RM70,000.00. Can the bank file a bankruptcy petition against me?

A: No. Before the coming into force of the Covid-19 Act, if you owe the bank for more than RM50,000.00, the bank can do so. However, under the Covid-19 Act, the creditor can only file a bankruptcy petition if the amount of debt is more than RM100,000.00.

  1. HIRE-PURCHASE ACT 1967

Q: I have a hire purchase agreement with Bank P. However, during the Movement Control Order (“MCO”), I have failed to pay more than 2 months of instalments. Can the bank take possession of my car?

A:   No. The bank cannot take possession of any goods i.e. your car for failure of payment of instalments for the period from 1.4.2020 – 30.9.2020.

  1. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999

If you have a credit sale agreement entered before 18.3.2020 and there are no overdue instalments before 18.3.2020, you have 3 options. The credit facility provider cannot sue you for the outstanding payment. For example:

Q: I have bought an iPhone 11 on 17.3.2020 via credit sale agreement with Maxis. During MCO, I have failed to pay 2 months of instalments. What are my options?

A:   If Maxis issue you notice of overdue payment, you can choose to either pay the overdue instalments, pay off the entire credit sale agreement or return your iPhone 11 to Maxis. Maxis is also not allowed to commence legal action to recover the outstanding amount from you.

  1. DISTRESS ACT 1951

Q: I have rented a room in Condominium Y. During MCO, I have failed to pay my rental for the period from April – July 2020. Can my landlord get a warrant of distress and seize my goods and sell them off for the purpose of recovering the rental?

A: No. If the tenant is unable to pay rental for the period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020, the landlord is not allowed to seize the tenant’s goods and sell them to recover the arrears under the Distress Act 1951.

  1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) ACT 1966

(i) Late payment charges

Q:   I have bought a house from developer Y. During MCO, I have failed to pay instalments for the period from April – June 2020 to developer Y. Can developer Y impose late payment charges on me for the 3 months of unpaid instalments?

A:   No. If the purchaser failed to pay any instalment under the schedule of payment for the period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020, the developer cannot impose any late payment charges in respect of such unpaid instalments. You may apply for extension of this period until 31.12.2020.

(ii)    Delivery of vacant possession (“VP”) and liquidated damages (“LAD”)

Q: I have bought a house from developer Z. The expected date for the delivery of VP is on 1.6.2020. However, developer Z has failed to deliver the VP on 1.6.2020 and deliver the VP on 15.8.2020. Can I claim LAD from developer Z for late of delivery of VP?

A: No. The period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be excluded from the calculation of the LAD.

(iii)   Defect liability period (“DLP”)

The period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be excluded from the calculation of DLP.

Q:   I have taken VP of my new house on 1.5.2019, when is my DLP ending?

A:   Assuming your DLP is 24 months and you shall have another extra 5 months and 13 days under the Covid-19 Act, it should end on 13.10.2021. However, you may even apply to the Minister for extension of another extra 4 months. In such event, your DLP will then end on 12.2.2022

  1. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967

Q:   My boss has fired me on 31.5.2020. When is the last day for me to file a representation to the Industrial Relation Department?

A:    You have 60 days to file a representation. However, the period from 18.3.2020 – 9.6.2020 will not be counted in the 60 days period.

Do you require further assistance ? do contact us directly at http://yhalaw.com.my/contact-us

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们