Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 21 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 21 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 21 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    Can the courts grant an extension of time for completion of a contract which performance has been delayed or hindered due to the movement control order?

    Case:

    HO KEAN PIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD & ANOR [2020] 1 LNS 1107

    Brief Facts:

    • Ho Kean Pin (“Ho”) is the successful bidder at a public auction carried out by the High Court of Penang on 7 January 2020 of a property (“Property”) at an auction price of RM365,000-00 and paid 10% of the reserve price amounting to RM35,000-00 (“Deposit”).

     

    • Subsequently, Ho secured a term loan facility for RM328,500-00 together with MRTA for RM3,078-00 from Malayan Banking Berhad (“Bank”) on 21 January 2020 for the purchase of the Property.

     

    • Ho was required to pay the balance purchase price before the expiry date of 6 May 2020 as stipulated in the Conditions for Sale of the auction.

     

    • Unfortunately, The Government of Malaysia pursuant to section 11 of the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 (Act 342) imposed a movement control order (“MCO”) for 56 days, to curb the transmission of Covid-19 virus as a safety measure for the people of Malaysia.

     

    • During the MCO, the Penang land office, law firms and other relevant bodies were not allowed to operate except banking and financial institutions.

     

    • As the last date to pay the balance purchase price on 6 May 2020 was during the MCO period, the sale could not be completed and Ho filed this application seeking an extension of time to complete the transaction.

     

    • Ho contended that the MCO enforced by the government was beyond the control and outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties which made the performance of Ho’s obligation impossible.

     

    • Thus, it was unfair and prejudicial for Ho to be held responsible for the non-performance of the said obligations which is due solely to the imposition of the MCO and not caused by any fault of Ho.

     

    • The lodgement of a private caveat on the Property by the Bank was a prerequisite condition before the release of the loan/balance purchase price by the Bank and the private caveat could not be lodged because the Penang land office was not operational during the entire duration of the MCO.

     

    • Also, Ho averred that it would suffer injustice if the Deposit was forfeited if the balance purchase price is not paid within the stipulated time period as provided in the Conditions of Sale of the auction and in section 357(1)(g) of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”).

     

    • The Bank on the other hand, relied on section 357(1)(g) of the NLC which stated that there shall be no extension of time for the period specified for the payment of the balance purchase price. However, the Bank left it to the discretion of the court whether or not to grant the extension of time sought by Ho.

    HIGH COURT DECISION – APPLICATION DISMISSED!

    The High Court dismissed the application on the following basis:

     

    • It is indeed unfortunate that Ho is placed in this dire predicament due to no fault on his part but for the imposition of the MCO.

     

    • However, unlike some other countries where new laws were passed to deal with issues of this nature, at the time of writing this judgment, in Malaysia new legislative provisions have yet to be enacted by Parliament to deal with a situation as in this application which is caused solely by the restrictions of the MCO.

     

    • Thus, without the necessary legislative provisions, this court cannot grant any orders that would be in breach of the clear mandatory provisions of section 257(1)(g) of the NLC.

     

    • Whilst the courts can consider invoking its inherent jurisdiction to allow the application if the present circumstances were a fit and proper case and in the interest of justice, the courts have to at the same time ensure that the Bank’s interests were not jeopardised when deciding whether to grant this application.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a person who has given a property by way of a gift claim caveatable interest over the said property subsequently? Case: HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI v. TAN SRI DATO’ KAM WOON WAH & ANORRead more

    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser of an auction property claim trespass on the basis that it was unaware of the existence of retention pond and structures on the auction land? Case: BAYANGAN SEPADU SDN BHD v. JABATANRead more

    • Legal Update 23 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a management corporation suspend the usage of the common facilities or common services due to arrears owing by a proprietor, which arrears are disputed by the proprietor? Case: PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE v.Read more

    • Legal Update 22 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser claim for the potential loss of profit on a property successfully bid at an auction if the property bid is subsequently claimed by someone else later? Case: PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT TANAH DANRead more

    • Legal Update 20 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      If there was late delivery of a property to the buyer, should damages for late delivery be calculated from the date of the sale and purchase agreement or the date the booking fee was paid?Read more

    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the management corporation of a building enact house rules to prohibit short-term rentals? Case: INNAB SALIL & ORS v. VERVE SUITES MONT’ KIARA (CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-74-10/2019(W) Brief Facts: Innab Salil and others (“SaidRead more

    • Legal Update 18 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can statistical data not premised on words be found to be defamatory in nature? Case: SUN MEDIA CORPORATION SDN BHD v. THE NIELSEN COMPANY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD [2020] 7 CLJ 751 Brief Facts: Sun MediaRead more

    • Legal Update 17 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can service charge received by employees as incentives be incorporated into the calculation of their basic salary to meet the requirement of minimum wage? Case: CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTELRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory

      JHJ had the pleasure of meeting one …

    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

      It is the last month of the …

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021
    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)
    • Legal Update 23 of 2020
    • Legal Update 22 of 2020
    • Legal Update 21 of 2020
    • Legal Update 20 of 2020
    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • 20th Anniversary
    • About
    • Articles
    • Associates
    • Careers
    • Consultant
    • Contact Us
      • Ipoh
      • Kota Bharu
      • Melaka
      • Petaling Jaya
    • Disclaimer
    • Home
    • Industry Experience
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Legal Updates
    • Nature Of Practice
    • News & Bulletin
    • Our People
    • Partners
      • Adrian Thambyrajah
      • Jayadeep Bhanudevan
      • Siti Aminah Md Hanafi
    • Practice Areas
      • Banking & Finance
      • Building & Construction
      • Commerce & Trading
      • Corporate And Commercial
      • Dispute resolution, Arbitration & Mediation
      • Energy Oil & Gas
      • Healthcare
      • Human Resource & Industrial Relations
      • Information & Communication Technology
      • Insurance and Takaful
      • Knowledge and Advisory
      • Mining & Quarrying
      • Real Estate and Property Related Ventures
      • Telecommunication
      • Transportation and Logistics
    • Privacy Notice
    • Privacy Policy and Data Protection
    • Publications
    • We Care
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil