Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – REAL ESTATES – FREEHOLD –LEASEHOLD

Definition of Real Estate

  • Real property is commonly defined as land and the things permanently attached to the land (e.g. buildings).

Based on what system?

  • Property Administration in Malaysia is based on the Torrens System.
  • Under this system, all dealings in land must be registered in order to be effective.

Governed by which legislation?

  • Property law in Malaysia is governed by four (4) main legislations known as
  • National Land Code 1965;
  • National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Tiles) Act 1963;
  • Sarawak Land Code;
  • Sabah Land Ordinance.

National Land Code 1965 is only applicable to Peninsular Malaysia.

Can we have rights over the land?

  • You have a right to do with the land as you please, subject to restrictions imposed by law.
  • When you own land, you can do many things, e.g.
  • Rent/lease it to others;
  • Sell/transfer it;
  • Use it as collateral for a loan.

Tenure of land in Malaysia falls into two broad categories

  • Freehold
  • Leasehold

Freehold title:-

  • Enables the owner to hold the property forever (in perpetuity).

Leasehold title:-

  • The owner can only hold the property for a fixed period of time.
  • Land owned by states and are usually leased for term of 99 years.
  • Upon the expiry of leasehold tenure, the property is required to be surrendered to the state government if the owner does not apply to the state government to renew the leasehold tenure of the property.
  • Renewal of lease can be done by paying Premium to the state government.
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