Monday, May 7, 2007

Persatuan nelayan Johor dapat injunksi

Utusan Malaysia

JOHOR BAHRU 6 Feb. – Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini mengeluarkan perintah sementara bagi menghalang Syarikat Power Corporate Sdn. Bhd., daripada memasuki dan menguruskan ladang kelapa sawit milik Persatuan Nelayan Johor di Mukim Sungai Segamat, Segamat.

Perintah berkuatkuasa serta merta itu dibuat oleh Hakim Datuk Azhar Mohamed atas permohonan defendan menerusi peguamnya, Roger Tan sehingga injunksi itu didengar pada 13 Mac ini.

Ekoran perintah itu, kesemua pekerja termasuk pihak pengurusan Syarikat Power Corporate serta ejennya dihalang daripada memasuki ladang seluas 400 hektar itu.

Mereka turut dilarang dengan apa cara sekalipun memindah atau mengeluarkan buah kelapa sawit daripada ladang yang diusahakan sejak Julai 1996.

Sebelum ini, Persatuan Nelayan Johor mengemukakan satu injunksi interim (sementara) terhadap Power Corporate selepas mendakwa syarikat itu melanggar perjanjian yang dibuat ketika melantiknya memajukan tanah tersebut pada 1996.

Menurut Pengerusinya, Mohamad Dolmat, perjanjian itu termasuk membabitkan kegagalan syarikat mengagihkan keuntungan daripada hasil memajukan projek tersebut kepada persatuan berkenaan.

Beliau berkata, tanah berkenaan merupakan kurniaan kerajaan Johor bagi membantu meningkatkan ekonomi masyarakat nelayan.

Friday, May 4, 2007

LAW & REALTY: Management Corporation

The Sun

From its inception to the 1st AGM

Law & RealtyA management corporation (MC) exists by operation of law upon the opening of a book of the strata title in respect of a sub-divided building such as a condominium or land such as a gated community development.

In simple terms, when individual strata titles are issued for these individual parcel units or land parcels, the MC is deemed to have been set up. 

Duties and powers of the MC

Generally, the duties and powers of the MC are set out in section 43 of the Strata Titles Act, 1985 (“the Act”). Subject to any restrictions or directions imposed at a general meeting, the Council may conduct the MC’s business and exercise and perform any of the duties and powers or delegate the exercise and performance of any of these duties or powers to any one or more of the Council members.

The Council

However, until and unless a Council is elected, the MC is still technically being run by the original proprietor who is the developer of the building or land. The Council can only be formed and elected at the 1st annual general meeting (AGM) of the MC.

Under section 41, the 1st AGM of the MC must be convened within one month after the expiration of the initial period.

“Initial period” means the period commencing from the day the MC is formed and ending on the day on which there are proprietors of at least one-quarter of the aggregate share units, excluding the proprietor of the building lot (who is usually the original proprietor of the Master Title) who is registered as the proprietor of a parcel or a provisional block.

Restrictions and responsibilities imposed on the MC during initial period

During the initial period, the MC cannot:

(a) amend its by-laws in such a manner that a right is conferred or an obligation is imposed on one or more but not all proprietors or in respect of one or more but not all or provisional blocks;

(b) borrow moneys or give securities; or

(c) enter into any maintenance or service contracts for any periods extending beyond the expiration of the initial period.

Without prejudice to any other remedy available against the original proprietor, Management corporation if a MC contravenes any of the above, the original proprietor shall be liable for any loss suffered by the MC or any parcel proprietor as a result of the contravention, and the MC or any parcel proprietor may recover from the original proprietor as damages for breach of a statutory duty, any loss suffered by it or him in consequence of such contravention.

During the initial period, the MC is required to prepare proper accounts under its name relating to all monies of the MC with regard to its income and expenditure. Such accounts must be audited by a registered auditor appointed by the original proprietor and the audited accounts shall be presented to the Commissioner of Buildings (“the Commissioner”) appointed under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 who may on an application made by a parcel proprietor, make available the audited accounts for inspection at all reasonable times.

Contributions payable during the initial period

The amount payable as contribution to the management fund during the initial period shall be determined by the original proprietor. Before the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007 (“the Amendment Act), which came into force on April 12, 2007, the amount had to be approved by the Director of Land and Mines.

However, the Amendment Act allows any proprietor who is not satisfied with the sum determined by the original proprietor to apply to the Commissioner for a review and the Commissioner may: 

(a) determine the sum; or

(b) instruct the original proprietor to appoint a registered property manager to recommend the sum payable and submit a copy of a report to the Commissioner for his approval and the Commissioner shall determine the sum payable as he thinks just and reasonable.

Notice and agenda of the AGM

A notice of not less than 14 days before the AGM specifying the place, the date and hour of the meeting and the general nature of the business to be transacted must be given to every proprietor and every first chargee of a parcel in the building or land who has notified his interest to the MC.

If the original proprietor fails to convene the first AGM within one month after the expiration of the initial period, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding RM25,000 and to a further fine not exceeding RM2,000 for each day the offence continues to be committed.

Further in this case, the Commissioner may, on application by the purchasers, a proprietor or chargee of a parcel, appoint a person to convene the 1st AGM of the MC within such time as may be specified by him.

The agenda for the 1st AGM shall include the following matters:

(a) to decide whether to confirm, vary or extend insurances effected by the MC;

(b) to decide whether to confirm or vary any amounts determined as contributions to the management fund;

(c) to determine the portion of contribution to the management fund to be paid into the special account to be maintained under section 46;

(d) to determine the number of members of the council which shall not be less than three and not more than 14 proprietors, and to elect the council where there are more than three proprietors;

(e) to decide whether to amend the additional by-laws in force immediately before the holding of the meeting; and

(f) to present the audited accounts of the MC.

Quorum

The quorum at the AGM is one half of the persons entitled to vote. However, if within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same place and time. If at the adjourned meeting, a quorum is not present within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, those persons entitled to vote who are present shall constitute a quorum.

Chairman of the meeting 

The meeting shall be presided by a chairman who shall be elected from among the persons present who are entitled to vote. 

Persons entitled to vote 

Section 37(2) has been repealed by the Amendment Act. With this deletion, a parcel proprietor is now entitled to vote personally even though the property is subject to a charge. Before this, only the chargee had the right to vote personally unless he had appointed the proprietor as his proxy or the charge agreement between them stated otherwise.

However, no proprietor is entitled to vote or to be elected to hold office at a general meeting unless he has duly paid all contributions to the management fund. A “proprietor” means a person who is for the time being registered as the proprietor of his parcel.

A proxy, however, need not be a proprietor but it does not include the original proprietor or his agent or servant. But a proxy is not entitled to vote except on a poll. 

Co-proprietors may vote through a jointly-appointed proxy. In the absence of a proxy, co-proprietors are not entitled to a vote on a show of hands except where a unanimous resolution is required.

Transfer of strata titles

It is common to see the original proprietor retaining control of the MC by electing its representatives to the Council at the 1st AGM primarily because not many parcel purchasers would have registered themselves as a registered proprietor. Some may not have also fully settled all the contributions to the management fund, even though a proprietor is entitled to demand proof at the AGM whether the original proprietor has done so before the latter is entitled to vote.

Pursuant to section 40A, which was inserted by the Amendment Act, both the original proprietor and the purchaser are required to execute the documents of transfer of strata titles within a specified period. The original proprietor is required to do so within 12 months from the date of issue of strata titles by the Land Administrator or any extended period approved by the Director of the Land and Mines upon the opening of the strata register. The purchaser must do so within 12 months or any extended period approved by the Director from the date of notice of transfer of strata titles issued by the original proprietor or from the date of purchase of the parcel, whichever is the later. 

If either party fails to do so, the penalty is a fine of not less than RM1,000 and not more than RM10,000 ringgit per parcel.

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Property sales by forgers leave owners high and dry

The Straits Times, Singapore
By Carolyn Hong, Malaysia Bureau Chief

Lawyers seek change to law as court ruling gives land owners no recourse

KUALA LUMPUR - A SIX-YEAR-OLD land case is haunting property owners in Malaysia as dozens have suddenly found themselves with no remedy after their land was sold by forgers.

Lawyers say there are at least 17 to 20 cases where mainly elderly land owners found their lands sold to a third party by a forger.

Under the law as it stands, following a court case in 2001, they have no remedy.

The Federal Court, in the case of Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit, decided that if a property was sold through forgery to an innocent buyer, the law favours the buyer.

The decision was criticised at that time for undermining the integrity of land titles.

Lawyer Datuk Theng Book said the spate of cases suggest that there could be a syndicate at work targeting mainly elderly land owners who have left their property idle for a while.

'I won't say Adorna is wrong in law but it is not a good decision. It encourages people to steal,' he told The Straits Times.

This situation, much debated at that time, received renewed attention recently when retired judge Datuk N.H. Chan published a book lambasting this decision among several others as causing serious injustice.

He called it a case of 'most outrageous injustice' as Thai national Boonsom Boonyanit lost her two pieces of land in Penang after someone forged her signature and sold them to a third party.

The Federal Court decided that, despite the forgery, the buyer bought the land in good faith and obtained a good title.

'You do not have to be a lawyer or a judge to know that the Federal Court is plainly wrong,' he wrote.

Datuk Chan retired from the Court of Appeal in 2000.

As a result of this decision, dozens of land owners are now fighting a losing battle after discovering that their properties have been fraudulently sold.

'We have 17 cases reported to the MCA, and 80 per cent of the victims are elderly people,' said Datuk Theng Book, who is also legal adviser to the Malaysian Chinese Association's public complaints department.

The typical modus operandi is to forge the identity card of the land owner and lodge a police report claiming that the land title is lost.

A new title is obtained, and the land is then quickly sold.

The cases include the fraudulent sale of a piece of land worth RM10 million (S$4.4 million) in Cheras, Selangor.

Datuk Theng Book said the victims usually discovered the fraud when they suddenly found strangers taking possession of the property.

A few managed to find out early enough to prevent the sale from going through.

Lawyer Roger Tan, who is head of the Bar Council's conveyancing practice section, said the lawyers association was preparing a memorandum with proposed legal amendments to urge that the government rectify the law.

'The amendments will have to take into account the interests of two victims - the original land owner and the bona fide purchaser. We are looking at mechanisms in Canada and Australia where the government has set up a compensation fund for victims,' he said.

AGGRIEVED PARTIES

'The amendments will have to take into account the interests of two victims - the original land owner and the bona fide purchaser.'

LAWYER ROGER TAN, who says the Bar Council is preparing a memorandum with proposed legal amendments to urge the government to rectify the law in question.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Tighten rules to prevent land scams, govt urged

New Straits Times

KUALA LUMPUR: Businessmen, developers and landowners worried over land title fraud cases have urged the government to impose more stringent regulations.

Concerned representatives from various associations held a Press conference to urge the government to re-look legislation which they feel do not guarantee property ownership.

Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry deputy secretary-general Datuk David Chua said the Federal Court, in the case of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit in 2001, allowed the party which purchased a land title in good faith to keep the land, regardless of the fact that the title was forged.

Chairman of the Conveyancing Practice Committee of the Bar Council, Roger Tan, said the original owner, clueless about the sale, was not given any compensation.

"So, even if the purchaser bought the land in good faith from a con man, he gets to keep it," he said.

It was suggested at the Press conference that a form of compensation fund or insurance scheme be initiated to protect innocent purchasers.

The MCA Public Complaints Department have received 20 complaints of this nature since 2003.

Its legal adviser, Datuk Theng Book, said last year, the department prevented a RM350,000 landed property from being sold in the nick of time.

He said since the land registry does not carry photographs of the land owners, some use the names of the land owners to get an extract of the land grant before selling the property to unscrupulous people.

He said those targeted are those in the older age group.

Also present at the Press conference were representatives from the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association, National House Buyers Association and the Malaysian Chapter of the International Real Estate Federation (Fiabci).