MPs urged to pass Covid-19 bill

The Star

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council’s Conveyancing Practice Committee has called politicians to put aside their differences for the sake of the country to pass a Covid-19 bill in the coming May 18 Parliamentary sitting. 

At a webinar meeting yesterday “Adequacy of our laws on stratified properties during and post-MCO”, president and panellist Datuk Roger Tan said without this bill, there would be massive litigation, done on a piecemeal basis, for failure to perform contractual obligations after the lifting of the MCO. 

To avoid that situation, the enactment of such a bill would at once cover all contractual obligations to be performed on or before a certain time. 

“Singapore, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, Scotland and even Hungary have done it, ” Tan said. 

“This bill would provide ‘a legal shield’ to all businesses big and small, and across all sectors of the economy. 

Tan said these measures were temporary and should be in place for a prescribed period. 

“In other words, the non-performing party’s liabilities will be suspended and non-enforceable during the prescribed period, ” he said. 

The enactment of such a bill is to “safeguard” against any unfair outcomes, Tan said. 

Malaysia too needs a Covid-19 Bill

The Star Biz

by Roger Tan

MALAYSIA should enact a law similar to the one proposed by the Singapore government to offer temporary relief to businesses, in particular SMEs and individuals who are unable to perform their contractual obligations because of the movement control order (MCO) brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. 

On April 1, the Singapore Ministry of Law announced that it intended to introduce the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill this week. 

The Bill will have a retrospective effect and cover contractual obligations that are to be performed on or after Feb 1,2020 and contracts that were entered into or renewed before March 25,2020. 

According to its statement, Feb 1 was used as the approximate date when the impact of Covid-19 started to be significantly felt in Singapore’s economy. 

These measures will be in place for a prescribed period, which will be six months from the commencement of the new law, expected to come into force this month itself, and may be further extended for up to a year from the commencement of the new law. 

In other words, the non-performing party’s liabilities will be suspended and non-enforceable during the prescribed period. 

Contracts covered by the Bill are: 

> Non-residential leases and licences in that if the commercial tenants or licensees are unable to pay rent for February and/or March, they may seek relief; 

> Construction and supply contracts in that the contractors will not have to pay damages for late delivery or non-performance of contractual obligations; 

> Contracts for the provision of goods and services (eg, venue, catering) for events (eg, the cancellation of weddings, business meetings) and for visitors to Singapore, domestic tourists or outbound tourists, or promotion of tourism (eg, the cancellation of cruises, hotel accommodation bookings), for example, there shall be no forfeiture of booking fees or deposits; and 

> Certain loan facilities granted by a bank or a finance company to SMEs with turnover of not more than S$100mil in the latest financial year. 

'Review fees for loan documents'

The Bar Council said it is high time for banks to review its practice of imposing fees for loan documents. (Image by Pixabay:  For illustration purposes only)

New Straits Times

Banks' practice against the law, a burden to customers, says Bar Council official 

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council said it is high time for banks to review its practice of imposing fees for loan documents.

Bar Council conveyancing practice committee chairman Datuk Roger Tan said the practice was against the law and has a become a burden which consumers could do without.

He said the fee was imposed on the banks’ loan documents, which borrowers sign when taking, for example, a housing loan.

“These documents are largely standardised documents for each bank.

“The bank’s solicitors will typically download the documents from the bank’s website and, after completing the particulars relating to the borrower and the loan, print for the borrower’s signature,” said Tan.

He said banks currently charge a fee for the ‘purchase’ of these documents ranging from RM100 to RM500, even though the cost of printing the documents is borne by the solicitors.

He said that the document fee is usually passed on to the borrowers as part of the solicitor’s charges. However, Tan said that in some cases, solicitors are compelled by the banks to absorb these costs.

“This results in the borrowers having to pay additional costs when taking a loan from a bank and the solicitors getting peanuts for the professional work done especially purchasers of low- and medium-cost and affordable homes.

Unconscionable for banks to seek refuge behind exclusion clauses

The Star

by Roger Tan 

Protection needed: It is time for the government to introduce a legislation or extend the protection currently given to consumers under  the Consumer Protection act, 1999  to all types of contracts, including financial dealings and transactions, involving, particularly, purchasers and borrowers of a housing  development.

In April 2008, a British couple living in the United Kingdom obtained a loan facility of RM715,487 to finance the purchase of their property in Malaysia. It was a term of the loan facility that the bank would make progressive payments to the developer against certificates of completion issued by the architect at each progress billing.

In March 2014, the developer sent a notice for a progressive payment to the bank, supported by an architect’s certificate.

The bank’s disbursement department then sent several internal emails to its branch to conduct site visit inspection on the property.

The branch did not do anything, and meanwhile, the due date for payment had also expired on March 25, 2014.

Neither did the bank notify the developer nor the couple that a site visit inspection was an additional condition precedent to drawdown.

The bank also did not request for any extension of time to make the payment pending the completion of the site visit.

On April 10, 2015, the developer terminated the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), after about one year from the issuance of the invoice.

The couple then sued the bank for breach of agreement and/or negligence.