Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

REAL ESTATE, DEFECT LIABILITY AND RECTIFICATION

I have just taken vacant possession of my new strata property. I have discovered that the ceiling is leaking. I have requested the developer to fix it. They did not. They kept delaying. What can I do?

Clause 30 Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR 1989”) (which is also a clause in your sale and purchase agreement) requires developer to repair defects within 30 days after having received written notice from the Purchaser. If the developer refuses to do that, the purchaser can fix the defects themselves. Purchaser may deduct the costs from the sum held by the Vendor’s solicitors as stakeholder.

What is the procedure?

  • Step 1:

Issue a written notice stating the defective workmanship or materials.

  • Step 2:

Wait for 30 days.

  • Step 3:

Notify the developer the costs of repairing and making good the defects.

  • Step 4:

Give the developer an opportunity to carry out the repair works themselves within 30 days from the date of notification in Step 3.

  • Step 5:

Repair the defects after 30 days expires.

  • Step 6:

Tabulate the costs of rectification and issue a letter of demand to the developer’s solicitors claiming for the costs.

  • Step 7:

The Developer’s solicitors shall within 30 days release the costs to the Purchaser.

  • Step 8:

If the Developer’s solicitors neglected, fail and/or refuse to release the payment to the Purchaser, lodge a formal complaint to the Bar Council. You may also consult your lawyer to commence legal action or you may file a claim at the Tribunal for Homebuyer’s Claim (for claim up to RM50,000.00 only).

Do you require further assistance ? do contact us directly at http://yhalaw.com.my/contact-us

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

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