S.

6 CLA 1956 excludes english equitable principle to land

english equitable principles where there is a lacuna in local law & it suits local
S.3 circumstances.
PC said S.6 was wide enough to deny English rules of equity relating to land
including grant of relief vs forfeiture. Lord Keith NLC is a complete & comprehensive
UMBC v PHT Kota code of law governing tenure of land, no room for importation of any rules of
Tinggi english law

Edgar Joseph Jr, UMBC comments were restricted to its fact, did not prevent him
from finding an equitable easement. S.206(3) provides for liberal application of
Templeton equity wherever there is basis.

court held UMBC is meant to preclude rules of equity in relation to land

transactions, the dictum represents & remains a voice in the wilderness which never
Chuah Eng Khong need be heeded

Court's inherent jurisdiction to do equity

UMBC v PHT Kota court refused to exercise inherent jurisdiction

Tinggi
PC held torrens system did not prevent court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction
Oh Hiam v Tham to do equity in personam, applied equitable remedy of rectification to rectify
Kong register.

Application of S.3 CLA 1956

equitable estoppel was general application of equitable principle which could be
Devi v Francis resorted under S.3 and no excluded by S.6.
BARE TRUST
PC Lord Roskill obiter being peculiarity of english land law should be excluded by S.6.
Chin Choy v Collector
of Stamp Duty

prohibitory order obtained by JC vs registered proprietor of land should not be

Karrupiah Chettiar allowed as proprietor has sold the land and received the payment in full. held legal
interest to land only as bare trustee for purchaser.

Equitable interest
S.206(1)(b) NLC registrable interest only takes effect upon registration.
dealing not registered shall not affect contractual operations of transaction.
S.206(3) NLC

Malayan Banking v NLC does not prohibit creation of equitable charges.

Zahari
Templeton equitable easement
Vallipuram v Where no lienholder's caveat is entered lender may not have lien under NLC but
Palaniappa may have equitable lien.
Constructive notice
constructive notice to resolve issues of competing claims to unregistered interest in
Vallipuram Sivaguru land.
 Doshi v Yeoh Tiong constructive notice is inapplicable in a system of title or interest by registration.
Lay
Equitable concepts relating mortgages
Haji Abdul Rahman v no such thing as mortgage under FMS Land Code & hence principle once a mortgage
Mohamed Hassan always a mortgage had no application.
Chuah Eng Khong was loan agreement cum absolute assignment with irrevocable power of attorney
where separate title to property was yet to be issued, court said it would amount to
equitable mortgage.

Phileoallied Bank v FC said that absolute assignment by borrower of all his right over immovable
Bhupinder Singh property that has no issue document of title to a lender as security of loan
amounted to equitable mortgage.

BARE TRUST
registrar caveat cannot be entered vs a person who has parted with his title /
interest in land to purchaser and is merely holding as bare trustee
Temenggong
Securities v Registrar V & P in SPA have both fulfilled all their obligation under agreement:
of Titles Johor - P paid full purchase price
- V executed transfer form & surrendered IDT

- P paid full purchase price

- V executed transfer form and
Borneo Housing - Court to grant specific performance
Mortgage v Time The trustee beneficiary relationship will not apply in a vendor purchaser situation
Engineering where the contract of sale is not one of which court would grant specific
performance.

V had done everything as registered proprietor to transfer or divest his entire

Wu Shu Shen v Raja interest in the land to respondent. Thus V thereby become a bare trustee holding
Zainal Abidin the bare legal title to land on trust for respondent

doctrine of bare trustee cannot apply if there is no vendor purchaser relationship.

Dr. Wee the land owner assigned his rights in his land to developer to develop in
Dr Michael Atun return for a number of completed units. Arrangement was not a normal SPA & bare
Wee v Malaysia trust does not apply.
Credit Finance,

english equitable principle like bare trust concept be resorted to as regard the
Teo Keang Sood v tenure(保有) and incidents of various kinds of dealing in land in respect of period to
Khaw Lake Tee registration.
if bare trust concept applied and the prior claimant had become equitable owner
before the subsequent claimant's interest came into existence, prior claimant will
take priority as the time vendor entered into 2nd transaction with the subsequent
Ng Kheng Yeow claimant vendor no longer has any interest in the land. Hence he could not have
given any interest of the subsequent claimant.

case of contest btwn 2 or more equitable claimants, the first in time, all things in
Butler v Fairclough, equal, is entitled to the priority.
UMBC Bhd v Goh However first in time may lose his priority through any act or omission of his which
Tuan Laye causes the subsequent claimant to act to his detriment or prejudice.
 S.340(1) registration of transfer indefeasible
enter private caveat to maintain status quo until dispute resolved, caveatable interest
S.323(1)(a) within S.323(1)(a)

fraud exception.
Sinnaiyah & Sons, prove the fraud on balance of probabilities
Datuk Jaginder Singh v Tara Rajaratnam, represented to TR was signing a security
document when in actual fact signing document of transfer. Court found fraudulent
misrepresentation.
S.340(2)(a)
Abu Bakar bin Ismail v Ismail Husin, party of privy to the fraud, title will be defeasible

Tan Ying Hong, S.340 provides for deferred indefeasibility, no need to see if bona fide
purchaser for valuable consideration or not, as used to be the position Boonsum.

void instrument.
UMBC v Syarikat Perumahan Luas (No.2), interest of chargee defeasible since
S.340(2)(b) registration was obtained by means of an insufficient or void instrument

in exercise of any power or authority conferred under written law

D & C Bank v Kim Ming Choon, SAR had acted ultra vires by granting extension.
S.340(2)(c )
M & J Food v Siland, sale conducted without complying NLC, certificate of sale issued
is ultra vires and any title conferred is unlawful.
purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration
Purchaser S.5 NLC, person or body who in good faith and for valuable consideration.

OCBC V Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Johor, COA proviso to S.340(3) does not apply to
S.340(2). The proviso applies exclusively to which S.340(3) will only take effect after
the immediate registered proprietor under S.340(2) had transferred his defeasible title
or interest to someone else. The appellant bank as chargee, would not be
protected because it was claiming through or under Ng See Chow. conjunctive

Owe Then Kooi v Au Thiam Seng, HC held O could get land back from A but subject to
Proviso S.340(3) charge of bank as bank was a bona fide purchaser with valuable consideration had an
indefeasible charge. Even if the charge is held to be
valid, chargee acquired only interest and not title to and registered proprietor of
charged land can in fact further sell the land to a third party who take subject to
registered lease /charge. disjunctive

CIMB Bank v Am Bank, FC upheld COA decision, Wong was immediate purchaser
since CIMB charge was extinguished due to forgery. Ambank was subsequent
purchaser therefore Ambank charge is protected under proviso.
 The indefeasibility is postponed until time when a subsequent purchaser acquires title
in good faith & for valuable consideration
proviso does not apply to S.340(2). It only applies to transactions subsequent to the
one in which vitiating circumstances took place.
M & J Frozen Food v Siland, Supreme court explained that if registration conferred
immediate indefeasibility, then once one's title or interest is registered, it couldn't be
challenged, that it must become unimpeachable. However this is not the case under
NLC where apart from fraud or misrepresentation there are other circumstances that
can render owner's title defeasible.

Adorna Properties, COA held NLC provided for deferred indefeasibility and said that
proviso (3) only applied to transactions subsequent to the one where the vitiating
circumstances took place.

Tan Ying Hong, Proviso to S.340(3) is directed towards (3) alone & not (2).
Therefore, a person/body in the position of Adorna Properties could not take
advantage of the proviso to (3) to avoid its title or interest from being impeached.
The FC in Adorna Properties had misconstrued S.340(1),(2),(3) & came to erroneous
Deferred conclusion that the proviso (3) equally applies to (2). By doing so FC gave recognition
indefeasibility to concept of immediate indefeasibility under NLC which is contrary to provisions in
S.340.

Au Meng Nam, Gopal Sr Ram stated that Adorna was wrongly interpreted:
- central to doctrine of indefeasibility housed in S.340 that IDT must be genuine.
In Adorna, instrument of transfer & other doc were forged but title was genuine. The
case here title was forged. Hence Adorna clearly distinguishable from facts of the case.
- FC overlooked the critical words "to whom it may subsequently be transferred"
Adorna equated purchaser & registered proprietor. In doing so, FC clearly
overlooked S.5 that defined them separately & differently.
Vendor has no title to pass, nemo dat quod non habet (you cannot give what you do
not have). The only exception was in favour of bona fide purchaser for value.

immediately to vitiating circumstances will be conferred statutory protection

provided he is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.
The proviso in (3) applies to (2). Proviso not confined to subsequent transaction & can
be resorted to even for transaction where vitiating circumstances took place.
Immediate
indefeasibility
 Immediate
indefeasibility
Boonsum Boonyanit v Adorna Property (COA),
HC & FC, held that NLC provided for immediate indefeasibility & came to the
conclusion that proviso (3) was not restricted to subsequent transaction and even
applied to transaction where vitiating circumstances took place.

nothing in S.340 prejudice or prevent determination of title /interest by operation of

law.
Krishnadas v Maniyam, FC held exception to indefeasibility dealing with fact patterns
or situations which do not fall squarely within exceptions to indefeasibility.
S.340(4)(b)
Ong Chat Pang, operation of law enables relief to be granted in cases where
contractual or conscientious obligations are undertaken by or imposed on registered
proprietor either at law or in equity.
 S.253 chargee is entitled to apply and obtain OFS.
provides court shall order sale of land or lease to which it relates unless it is satisfied of
S.256(3) cause to the contrary.
cause to Malaysian Building Society v Univein, BOP on person seeking to stop
contrary
- notice requirements in F16D or F16E.
Statutory notice
F16E is used when sum is payable on demand whereas F16D is to be used where there
is a breach.
Jacob v OCBC, wrong statutory notice is used it can be cured using S.62 & S.71
Interpretation Act 1948 together with 1967 Act, where deviation has no substantial
effect and did not mislead chargor.
S.255, principal sum secured by any charge is payable by chargor on demand, notice in
F16E.
S.430 does not specify type of doc & carbon copy in same uniform process would be
primary evidence.
S.431 delivering notice to the person.
Standard Chartered Bank v Tunku Mudzaffar, service of F16D on chargor is mandatory
in law and only upon due service of this notice can follow up proceedings under S.256,
O83 ROC.
Malayan United Finance v Tan Ah Moi, Court held notice was not valid as chargee has
to serve 2 notices on 2 chargors separately.

- procedural requirements of O83R3

not informed about the hearing whereby reserve price is fixed

Asia Commercial Finance v Development, would not render proceeding void, without
any evidence reserve price undervalue indicate fraud
reserve price too low
People Realty v Hong Leong Bank, dismissed as chargor did not produce evidence
valuation method wrong.
Asia Commercial Finance v Development,chargee owes a duty to a chargor to take
reasonable care to obtain true market value of land at date of sale. A sale at undervalue
indicate fraud or want of proper care.

Puah Bee Hong v Pentadbir Tanah, it was held that an order of superior court must be
complied until it is set aside.
Low Lee Lian
- CTC 3rd party charge
UOB v Soon Kin Fah, legal charge was perfectly valid & accepted by banking and legal
profession, there will be no CTC.
Low Lee Lian
- CTC

• Unilateral variation of interest rate

Cooperative Central Bank v Mengkuang Properties, wrongful payment of default
interest to which Plt was not entitled render notice of demand and notice in F16E
ineffectual & invalid.
Foo Yoke Foon v Public Bank, charge doc were executed in presence of his own
solicitor that chargor could not argued that variation of interest by charge was an
unilateral act. The court held that written notice to vary interest or to impose penalty
interest is not a must hence there is no CTC.
c/f
United Merchant Bank v Chang Miau Sian, Plt had varied rate of interest but chargor
had not been served notice in writing. Court distinguished Foo as here the charge doc
were executed by D(chargor) b4 Plt's solicitor and not D's solicitor, hence there was CTC.

Monies payable stated in form

S.255, if the sums are not paid within one month from date of notice the chargee can
apply for an OFS

Letter of Demand from bank's solicitor on D

Bangkok Bank v Chuan Kee Co., nothing in NLC states that prior written notice of
demand separate from F16D is required.

O83R2, not less than 4 clear days b4 day fixed for 1st hearing, Plt shall serve on D OS
supported by copy of affidavit

- exceptions to indefeasibility doctrine in S.340

- contrary to some law or equity
Toh Huat Khay v Lim A Chang, Director of Lands and Mines approved transfer despite
prohibited its transfer for 10 years & only with State consent. unlawful, null and void,
defeasible.

MUI v Cheah Kim Yu, OFS is made, drawn and perfected judge functus officio and has
no power to set aside the order.
UMB v Chong Bun Sun, Statutory provision on manner of sale which court ought to
make under S.257 that S.257(1)(a) does not provide for any other method of sale. It will
private be clear usurpation of the legislative function if an order for sale by private treaty is
treaty allowed.

S.266, chargor right to tender payment b4 conclusion of sale, OFS cease to take effect

S.267, full price paid, given certificate of sale in F16F, registrable

M & J Food v Siland, sale concluded when purchaser paid full purchase price.
Variation or term and conditions in absence and without service was ultra vires under
NLC.

S.257(1)(g) BPP settled not later than 120 days & no extension of period
extension S.257(1)(h) BPP is not settled forfeited & disposed off in S.267A
S.267A, Deposit used to pay quit rent & expenses incurred in making & carrying OFS.
The balance if any will be retained in the account of chargor for reducing amount due to
chargee.
 S.21(1) of LA 1953, forchargee to initiate foreclosure proceeding in obtaining order for
sale on the charged land is 12 years from the date when the right to receive the money
accrued.

CIMB BANK BERHAD V SIVADEVI:

court held that S.21 applies to order for sale over charged land, as such, no action shall
be commenced after expiration of 12 years from the date when the right to receive the
money accrued.
“right to receive money” under S.21(1) only accrues after expiry of 16D and not from
date of default / breach by the borrower / chargor.
Therefore, the 12 year limitation period will be calculated from the expiry date of Form
16D.

RHB Bank Berhad v Dato’ Haji Muhammad bin Hamzah, Federal Court held that:
application by RHB to fix new auction dates were merely consequential proceedings
taken to enforce and execute OFS that was granted in 2002 i.e. it is merely executing
already existing proceedings to enforce a judgment- it is not a fresh action and
Limitation therefore the Act is not applicable to such a situation.
- It can only be a fresh proceeding, if and only if RHB decided to only now (in 2017) to
pursue enforcement proceedings (i.e. applying for an order for sale) against Datu Haji
Hamzah for the monies that he owes them; and
- OFS is not a judgement and therefore is not bound by the rules set under section 6(3)
of the Act.
This is because:
§ The court hearing the application for an order for sale does not make any
adjudication upon any substantive issues (i.e. determining the validity of the law or
whether the law was applied correctly etc.); and
§ The monies that Dato Haji Hamzah owed to the bank is not a judgment debt (a
judgment debt is a money that a person owes to the party that won a legal case)- it is a
debt owed under the provision of the National Land Code and RHB is merely exercising
their rights to enforce a remedy that was provided for under the Code.
 S.260(1) land is held by Land Office Title, the chargee must apply to LA for OFS
S.261 LA should hold an enquiry to determine application
LA shall order sale of land / lease to which charge in question relates unless he
S.263(1) is satisfied of the existence of CTC
read tgtr with S.253(4) means that only chargor & chargee can appear in
S.262(1) hearing unless an authorisation in writing was given to representative of
chargor.

collector whether there had been default in payment provided for. If he was so
Suppiah v Ponnampalam satisfied, he was obliged to make an order for sale.
LA's power in the inquiry are limited, cannot go behind the charge in view of
Gurpal Singh v Kananayer S.340(1) relating to the indefeasibility of title. Only HC has the power to set
aside any registered interest.

court said that S.261 imposes duty on LA to order the sale of the land to which
charge relates unless he was satisfied that:
- No existence of charge
Gov of Malaysia v Omar - No breach by chargor of the agreement complained of or
bin Hj Ahmad - There was such breach it had not been caused by chargor; eg where chargor
tenders payment & chargee refuses to accept them

aggrieved person/body by any decision of State Director, Registrar or LA may

S.418 within 3 months time from date of communication, appeal to court.
COA held that observations of FC in Low Lee Lian would apply to applications
Zubir Mustapha for OFS pursuant to S.263(1)
 S.321(3), registrar caveat shall continue in force until it is cancelled by Registrar:
- On his own motion
- Application by proprietor for cancellation
- 1st limb, pursuant to any order of the court made on appeal under S.418 vs his decision to
Registrar's enter caveat
caveat - 2nd limb, pursuant to any order of court vs his refusal of any application for its
cancellation under para (b)

S.321(3), continue in force until it is cancelled by the Registrar:

(a) on his own motion
(b) on application by proprietor for cancellation
(c ) 1st limb order of court made on appeal under S.418 vs his decision to enter caveat
2nd limb order of court vs his refusal of any application for its cancellation under para(b)

Removal of
Registrar's
caveat
Public Bank v PTG JB, registered chargee cannot apply to registrar for caveat to be cancelled.

D & C Bank v Govt of Malaysia, registered chargee cannot apply for removal under S.417.

S.323(1), can be entered on application of person or body.

Macon Engineers, existence a valid agreement for sale of land, purchaser is entitled to
lodged a caveat to protect his rights under contract and to sue for specific performance of
Private agreement.
caveat Caveat would have given notice to the world at large pending registration.

Butler v Fairclough, failure of prior claimant to enter a caveat caused him to lose priority.

S.325, caveator withdraws his own caveat.

Hiap Yiak Trading, if 1st caveat is voluntarily withdrawn by caveator himself, then he can
enter 2nd caveat on same land on same ground. S.329(2) makes no reference to S.325.

S.326, removal by registrar, only by person / body with registered title or interest
Procedure:
○ Apply in F19H to registrar with prescribed fee.
○ Registrar serve notice of intended removal F19C.
○ S.326(1B), caveat lapse expiry of 2 months unless court extended the time.
○ After receiving notice, caveator must apply to court for extension.
○ Caveator apply inter parte (ex parte only in exceptional cases) by OS + affidavit.

S.327, removal by court, aggrieved, apply to court .

must show aggrieved by existence.
Removal of RAP Nathan v Haji Abdul Rahman, suffer loss or damage if not removed.
private Eng Mee Yong, registered proprietor does not need to show aggrieved.
caveat
Removal of
private
caveat
Application:
○ Application inter parte OS + affidavit. (ex parte if circumstances so require)
○ Application by NOA, action pending, caveator caveatee parties to action.

S.329(1) caveator wrongfully or without reasonable course enters fails to withdraw any
private caveat shall be liable to compensate person or body who suffers any damage or loss.
(2) Court has ordered the removal of any private caveat under S.327, or has refused an
application under S.326(2) for an extension of time such caveat, or where the Registrar has
removed any caveat pursuant to S.326(3), the Registrar shall not entertain any application
for the entry of a further caveat.
Lourdenadin v Ratnavale, 1st caveat is removed by Registrar, caveator can enter 2nd caveat
on the same ground if he had not been properly served with notice intended removal in
F19C. Hiap Yiak
Trading, if 1st caveat is voluntarily withdrawn by caveator himself, then he can enter 2nd
caveat on same land on same ground. S.329(2) makes no reference to S.325.

S.328(1), duration of caveat is 6 years unless it is withdrawn by cavaetor under S.325, lapses
pursuant to S.326(1B) or removed by Registrar pursuant to order of the court under S.327.
duration
Thevathason v Kwong Joo, court held that if first caveat lapses after 6 years, caveator may
enter 2nd caveat on the same land based on the same grounds.

Applicant has burden to satisfy sufficient grounds in fact & law to be extended.
Luggage Distributors, 3 stage test:
caveatable interest within S.323(1)
Macon Engineers, existence a valid agreement for sale of land, purchaser is entitled to
lodged a caveat to protect his rights under contract.

Sing Lian Express, option to purchase in an unconditional binding contract is a caveatable

interest.

Chia See Yin, purchaser has no caveatable interest where vendor has validly terminated SPA
bcs of purchaser's failure to pay BPP within stipulated period.

EM Buxton, purchaser under contract for sale is claiming the return of deposit has no
caveatable interest as he is only claiming deposit.

Million Group v Lee Shoo Koon, where ctt has not been concluded, no caveatable interest

Extension
Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional v Astron, monetary interest not caveatable.
Taipan Focus v Baiduri PJ, a mere debt being monetarily not caveatable.
Hew Sook Ying, managing director or shareholder or officer of that company does not have
caveatable interest where caveat not entered to protect interest.
Natsafe (M) S/b V Loi Teak Kuong, no caveatable interest on grounds of shareholding
/settlement agreement. D's right merely monetary.
267(2) provides that even if granted consent of chargee, no tenancy exempt from
registration granted by chargor after date of registration of charge shall be binding on
purchaser unless prior to date of registration of certificate of sale, tenancy had become
protected by endorsement on register doc of title
Hotel Ambassador v Seapower

His claim raises serious question to be tried

On balance of convenience it would be better to allow caveat to remain until trial
Charge has remedy of possession under S.270, Lien holder has no remedy of possession
277
Registrable dealing. Must Non registrable dealing.
be registered to be recognised under S.243 & Protected by entry of lien - holder caveat by lien-
S.218 holder

Dealing but not restraint on dealings
Can have more than one charge on one
property.
Custody of IDT with 1st chargee
Dealings and restraint on dealing owing to
lienholder caveat
Can have only one lien at a time. Lien holder
possession of IDT. Lien restrains further lien

Chargee interest can be registered and takes Created by entry of lien holder caveat under
effect upon registration, S.243. Pending S281(1) by lien - holder who has custody of IDT or
registration charges may enter private caveat, duplicate lease
S.323(1)

Chargee can apply for an order for sale Lien holder must first obtain judgement on debt
application by HC or Land Administrator b4 proceeding to apply for order for sale.
Application made to HC or Land Administrator

More costly, takes time and involves Cheaper, quicker and involves less formalities
formalities
S.340 provides that registered charge is an No protection under S.340(1) as it is not capable of
indefeasible interest being registered
 equitable chargee could not obtain OFS under S.256 as the court held that only
Oriental Bank v Chup registered chargee could enforce his right of foreclosure under NLC.
Seng Restaurant

Mahadevan v Manilal bank equitable charge since there is no provision in NLC prohibiting equitable
& Sons charge
equitable charge could enter private caveat
Standard Chartered
Bank v Yap Sing Yoke

no caveatable interest exists a restriction in interest until consent of state authority

Goh Hee Sing has 1st been irrevocably obtained
Malayan Banking v equitable chargee may apply OFS under O83 ROC
Zahari bin Ahmad
the case of contest btwn 2 or more equitable claimants, the first in time, all things in
equal, is entitled to the priority.
Butler v Fairclough, However first in time may lose his priority through any act or omission of his which
UMBC Bhd v Goh causes the subsequent claimant to act to his detriment or prejudice.
Tuan Laye
 whom IDT to any land or duplicate deposited as security for loan provided in
S.330(1) S.281 apply to Registrar to enter lien-holder caveat in respect of land/lease.

entry of lien holder's caveat over a piece of land has same effect as private
S.330(5) caveat.

Proprietor or lessee must deposit IDT or duplicate lease with lender as

security for loan
S.281(1)
ORMORM Manickavasam Chetty v TJ McGregor
Perwira Habib Bank v Loo & Sons Realty, only registered proprietor or
registered lessee can create a lien
Hong Leong Bank v Staghorn, court said that registered proprietor can
deposit his IDT for a loan to 3rd party.

Requirements for intention to create lien

statutory lien Paramoo v Zeno, Intention to create lien is inferred from circumstances, the
fact that IDT is deposited with lender as security for loan not for other
purpose.

entry of a lien-holders caveat in respect of land, lease or undivided by lender

S.281(1)
S.281(1)(a)&(b), statutory lien only takes effect upon entry of lien-holder
caveat

lien holder must 1st obtain judgement for amount due b4 he can apply to
court for OFS.
S.281(2) Lien- holder when enforcing his lien is considered to be a secured creditor.

dealing not registered in accordance with NLC shall not affect contractual
S.206(3) rights of the parties.
lien-holder's caveat can only be entered when IDT was deposited to banker
and there must be consent of registered owner to entry of caveat.
Megat Najmuddin v If lien-holder's caveat is sufficient security then there would be no
Perwira Habib Bank negligence.

although no caveat is entered under NLC until caveat is entered, failure to

enter a lien-holder's caveat does not deprive lender of his right in equity as
Vallipuram long as there is an intention to create lien together with deposit of IDT
Sivaguru v
Palaniappa Chetty

parting with possession of IDT or duplicate lease for purpose other than that
Manickavasagam of surrendering the lien will not cause lien to be lost.
Chetty v Thomas
 no need to obtain developer consent to assignment, express notification to
developer will suffice.
S.22D HD (Control Developer provide all necessary and accurate confirmation of the records in the
&Licensing)A 1966 register whenever requested subject to a payment of a fee not exceeding RM50 or
such amount as may be prescribed.

not subject to HDA, consent can be imposed, condition must be fulfilled provided
Lee Ming Chong clear and reasonable.
express notification has been given to developer, developer to consent on the
S.4(3)CLA 1956 transfer.
fee of RM2,000.00 demanded by the Developer as its administrative fee is
Keepahead Holdings inordinately high. A fair and reasonable amount should be a sum of RM500.

housing development. More than 4 units of housing accommodation and includes

HD (Control collection of money or carrying on building operations for purpose of erecting
&Licensing)A 1966 housing accommodation.