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

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们