CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) ACT 2020

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

30 March ,2026 尚無留言