LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

Summary and Facts

The Court of Appeal (COA) case Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 1 involved a dispute from the sale of two properties initially purchased by the deceased under valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) but not transferred due to a lapse of 50 years. The vendor subsequently sold the same properties to another purchaser, leading to a charge created in favor of Malayan Banking Bhd. The administrators of the deceased’s estate challenged the second SPA and the bank’s charge.

Legal issues

i. Were the SPAs executed by the deceased binding and enforceable?
ii. Did the vendor hold the properties in trust for the deceased’s estate?
iii. Did the second purchaser and the bank qualify as bona fide purchasers for value under Section 340(3) of the National Land Code (NLC)?
iv. Was the bank negligent in verifying the legitimacy of the second SPA?

Court Findings

The deceased’s SPAs were deemed valid and enforceable, as the full purchase price had been paid, recorded in the vendor’s ledgers, and ratified by subsequent acts.
The vendor was held to hold the properties on constructive trust for the deceased’s estate. The first defendant’s prolonged inaction and acknowledgment supported this conclusion.
The second purchaser was not entitled to deferred indefeasibility as both the deceased and the second purchaser were considered first-layer immediate purchasers.
The bank, relying on the defective second SPA, could not claim protection as a bona fide purchaser due to its failure to exercise due diligence.
The bank’s omissions, including inadequate verification of the payment and property conditions (misrepresented as vacant lands), disqualified its claim for bona fide purchaser status. A simple site visit or evaluation would have revealed the properties were occupied.

Practical Implications

This case reinforces the binding nature of the Sales and Purchase Agreement and serves as a stark reminder of the critical role of due diligence in safeguarding legal interests.

Reference Case and Legislation

Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 1
He-Con Sdn Bhd v Bulyah bt Ishak & Anor (as administrators for the estate of Nor Zainir bin Rahmat, the deceased) and another appeal [2020] 4 MLJ 662, FC (refd)
National Land Code s 340(3)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言