Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
PROCEDURES OF PERFECTION OF TRANSFER & REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

PROCEDURES OF PERFECTION OF TRANSFER & REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

PERFECTION OF TRANSFER

Perfection of Transfer (“POT”) is necessary to transfer the ownership to the Purchaser(s) when the strata title / individual title is issued by the Developer.

Procedures

  • Step 1: The Purchaser(s) shall appoint his/her solicitors.
  • Step 2: The Purchaser(s) shall issue Letter of Authorisation to the solicitors to handle the POT.
  • Step 3: The solicitors will send the Letter of Authorisation to the Developer and liaise with the Developer for the necessary documents (i.e: a copy of title and Developer’s company documents)
  • Step 4: The solicitors will prepare Memorandum of Transfer (Form 14A). The Form 14A shall be executed by both the Developer and the Purchaser(s).
  • Step 5: Upon execution, the Developer shall deliver the original title to the solicitors for the purpose of transferring the ownerships to the Purchaser(s).
  • Step 6: The solicitors shall adjudicate the Form 14A and the Purchaser(s) shall pay stamp duty of the transfer of the Property subject to the purchase price of the Property.
  • Step 7: The solicitors shall present the Form 14A at the Land Office in order to transfer the ownership from the Developer to the Purchaser(s).

REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

If the Purchaser(s) obtains a loan to purchase the Property, the Purchaser(s) shall charge the Property to the bank by way of Registration of Charge (“ROC”).

Procedures

  • Step 1: The Solicitors shall prepare charge documents (i.e Charge Annexure and Form 16A).
  • Step 2: The charge documents shall be executed by the Purchaser(s) and the bank officer.
  • Step 3: Upon execution of the charge documents, the solicitors shall endorse the charge documents on the LHDN website.
  • Step 4: The Purchaser(s) shall pay stamp duty of the charge documents (i.e: RM10.00 per copy).
  • Step 5: The solicitors shall present the charge documents at the Land Office in order to register the charge in favour of the Bank.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们