Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

COVID-19 – LOAN REPAYMENT – CREDITWORTHINESS – TARGETED REPAYMENT ASSISTANCE (TRA) – METHODS – DEBT AVALANCHE – DEBT SNOWBALL

The Malaysian government has announced a three-month extension to the loan repayment moratorium for individuals who have lost their jobs and yet to find new employment during the Covid-19 pandemic – the Targeted Repayment Assistance (“TRA”) Programme. This programme is to assist those who face difficulties in continuing their debts during the Covid-19 pandemic. But a loan is a loan. Sooner or later it needs to be paid. Otherwise the creditworthiness of the individual can be compromised.

 What is Creditworthiness?

  • Creditworthiness is what the lender will determine whether an individual is eligible for acquiring a loan before the lender approve any new borrowings to the individual.
  • Creditworthiness plays an important role in having the required loan applications approved.
  • Creditworthiness is a measure of how well an individual manages their debts.

Two (2) Distinct Strategies to Settle Outstanding Balances

  • Debt Avalanche method
  • Debt Snowball method

 Debt Avalanche method

  • Prioritizing debts with the highest interest rates.
  • Paying off debt starting from highest rate to lowest interest rate, regardless of balance.
  • Debt avalanche method involves making minimum payments on all debt, then using any extra funds to pay off the debt with the highest interest rate.

 Pros

  • For individuals with larger amounts of debt, the avalanche method can reduce the time it takes to pay off the debt.
  • End up paying less money overall – provided the individual stick with the payment plan as the individual do not skip a month or two of strategic repayments.

Cons

  • This method requires discipline and commitment to pull off.
  • Also, it requires constant amount of discretionary income.

 Debt Snowball method

  • Prioritizing smallest debt.
  • Paying off debts from smallest balance to largest balance, regardless of interest rates.
  • The debt snowball method involves making minimum payments in all debt, then paying off the smallest debts first before moving on to next smallest.

Pros

  • Builds motivation by settling debts fast.
  • Forces the individual to stay intentional about paying one bill at a time until the individual is debt-free.

Cons

  • End up incur more interest.
  • More expensive overall.
  • Can take longer time to become completely debt-free.

Consequences for Late Loan Repayment

  • The credit score of the individual will be affected.
  • The individual will be charged penalties.
  • The individual may be filed for bankruptcy by failure to pay off a loan timely.

Advice

  • If you are unable to tackle your debts by yourself, do seek help from recognised agencies that can help you come up with a debt management plan.
  • Make sure you go to a reputable organisation and not some unauthorised agent that claims to represent financial institutions.
  • The Credit Counselling and Management Agency or AKPK offers free advice and guidance to borrowers including options for debt restructuring.
  • There are other agencies, including Creador Foundation, which provides financial literacy education for low and middle income adults via Multiply.
  • Whatever your financial situation may be, take time to review it and safeguard your creditworthiness.
  • Prioritize your essentials and do not let your bill grow faster than you can pay them.

If you need any assistance for loan, please do not hesitate to log on to our website at https://yhalaw.com.my/secure-loan-application/.

Send us your details and we will get our professional mortgage specialist to understand your needs and apply loan for you.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH