COVID-19 AMENDMENT BILL 2021

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

In brief

The Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) Amendment Bill 2021 was enacted by the Dewan Rakyat of Parliament on December16,2021. The bill was referred to as the Covid 19 Amendment Bill.

What is the new context in Covid 19 Amendment Bill?

Part XIA

The Covid-19 Amendment Bill adds a new Part XIA to the home development laws, which makes significant charges. We like to discuss the six major adjustments that will have an impact on housing developers and buyers.

a. Agreement and First Agreement

As can be seen in Schedule G, H, I and J, the term ‘agreement’ basically means sale and purchase agreement under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989.
However, the terms of ‘first agreement’ only applies between the first buyer of the property and the developer but this does not apply to the subsequent purchasers, therefore they will not enjoy the relief measures.

b. Late payment charges- Developers cannot charge

The developer shall not impose any late payment costs for unpaid instalments between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021, according to Clause 38B in the bill. The waiver of late payment penalties is only valid for the first agreement signed before May 31, 2021.

Q. I bought a house from developer A and failed to pay the monthly payments for the months of June to September during MCO. Is it possible for developer A to charge me late fees for the three months of unpaid instalments?

A. No, if the purchaser failed to pay any instalment under the schedule of payment for the period from 1 January 2021 – 31 December 2021, the developer cannot impose any late payment charges in respect of such unpaid instalments. However, subsequent purchasers will not enjoy these benefits.

c. Developer can apply for extension of delivery of vacant possession

Clause 38C of the Bill states that the developer may apply to the Minister for an exemption from the calculation of late delivery of vacant possession or completion of common facilities for any period between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021 if the Minister is satisfied that the inability was caused by the COVID-19 control or prevention measures specified, made, or taken under Act 342

Q. What if you bought a house from developer A and they failed to deliver the vacant possession and incomplete common facilities for the household? Are they liable to pay the penalties for failing to deliver vacant possession and incompletion of common facilities?

A. No, if the developer fails to complete everything by the time given, they are exempted from the calculation of late delivery of vacant possession or completion of common facilities for any period between 1 January,2021 till 31 December, 2021 only if the minister is satisfied that the inability was caused by the COVID-19 control or prevention measures specified, made, or taken under Act 342

d. Taking of Vacant Possession

Section 38D of the Bill states that if the purchaser is unable to take vacant possession during the period 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021 or any other time not covered by clause 38C above, the purchaser is not deemed to have taken vacant possession. During the full lockdown in 2021, the mobility control limitations were in effect from June 1 to October 31, 2021.

Q. What if you have bought a house from developer A and you have to move in by the given timeframe from the developer, however you are unable to do so. Does that mean that you have taken vacant possession of the property?

A. No, the purchaser is not regarded to have taken vacant possession if he or she is unable to do so during the period 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021, or any other time not covered by clause 38C above.

e. Exclusion of calculation of defect liability period

The period from 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021 shall also be excluded from the calculation of the defect liability term, according to Clause 38E of the Bill.

Q. I have taken vacant possession of my new house on 2.5.2020, when is my defect liability period ends?

A. Assuming your defect liability term is 24 months and you shall have another extra 4 months and 30 days under the Covid-19 act.

f. Saving

The bills stated that any legal procedures begun, or any judgement or award obtained, to recover late payment charges owed by the purchaser or liquidated damages would be unaffected by the revisions in section 38B, 38C, 38D, and 38E.

2) On the other hand, the new Covid-19 Amendment Bills 2021 have also added two new sections which are;

Section 40A states that under the Industry Relations Act of 1967, the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2021 will be omitted from the calculation of the period for according recognition, making a report and filing of representation and;
Section 40B held that under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, any employer, trade union of employers, trade union of workers, or worker who is in a place subject to an enhanced movement control order is excluded from the calculation of the period.

3) Part XIIIA and XIIIB

a. XIIIA (Modifications to the Sabah Labour Ordinance)

Section 42B, which allows employees to file a complaint under paragraph 7A(3), has been extended from June 1, 2021, to the expiration date of this Act, but not beyond December 31, 2022. Section 42C, on the other hand, states that an employee who is in a location subject to an enhanced movement restriction order is exempt from the calculation of the time limit for filing a complaint under paragraph 7A(3).

b. XIIIB (Modifications to the Sarawak Labour Ordinance)

Section 42E stated that the period from May 29, 2021 to October 31, 2021 should be excluded from the calculation of the period for filing a complaint under paragraph 8A(3), whereas Section 42(F) refers to employees who are subject to an enhanced movement control order.

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