Sub-Sale : The Term & The Procedures

A fictitious conversation over a cup of coffee between a potential purchaser of a property and the friend who is a lawyer

What is this thing phrased as “sub-sale”? 

Why do I continue to hear that phrase if I talk to a lawyer or a friend who happens to be a lawyer? 

I asked my friend who happens to be a lawyer, what is “sub-sale”?

My friend answered, “sub-sale” is a phrase that most lawyers who are involved in the transaction of buying and selling property from persons or company who are not the developer. 

So, what’s the difference with the normal sales with developers, I asked. 

My friend said, it is a transaction where at most of the time, the buyer, or in this case called “Purchaser”, is actually not the first-purchaser of the property. Parties would involve seller, who is called “Vendor”, who would most likely, but not always, the first purchaser. This Vendor would be selling his/her/their property to the Purchaser, who is eager to purchase the Property. Interesting, I thought. 

So, what would be the procedures to buy from a person who is most likely the first purchaser of a property? 

This was when my friend cringe. My friend answered, it depends on what you are intending to purchase. Most of the time, it would depend on the property that you intend to purchase. These properties are those which the Certificate of Fitness/Certificate of Occupation, has been issued. This certificate is important to prove that the property is already fit for human occupation, i.e. completed construction. 

What about those without the Certificate of Fitness/Certificate of Occupation? I asked. 

That property is normally the ones you are intending to buy from developer and it doesn’t fall into this category of “sub-sale”, my friend answered. 

Again, I had to ask my friend, what are the procedures throughout sub-sale transactions? It couldn’t be that difficult. I was pretty sure a person who is NOT a lawyer could understand the procedures and handles the transaction themselves. 

My friend sighs. 

The procedure depends on the property you are intending to buy. Whether it is a landed property, i.e. terrace, bungalows, semi-d or ones of “on air”, i.e. flats, apartments, condominiums? Whether the property has restriction or not? Whether the property is held under master title or individual title? Whether the property is assigned to banks or charged or free from any encumbrances? Whether you have to deal with the land office? Or do you have to deal with the developer in cases where the property is held under master title? Or would there be any liquidator involved due to the developer being wound up? This is just a few of “whether” situations that can be highlighted to you. 

There’s plenty more, said my friend. 

My friend continued on, “Generally, in any purchasing of property, you would need to deal with either the land office or the developer. In some cases, you would need to deal with the liquidator, for cases where the developer is wound up. If the property is one that is held under individual or strata title, you would need to deal with the land office. You would be signing a transfer form called Borang 14A. As for deals with the developer, this would mean that the property is still under master title. In this case, whoever you are buying the property from has only beneficial ownership of the property. The real owner of the property would still be the developer. This would mean that you would not be signing any Borang 14A for transfer of ownership. Instead, you would be signing another document called “Deed of Assignment. This serves to assign whatever beneficial interest from the seller to you.” 

I had listened to my friend going on and on and I was getting a spinning sensation in my head. In my head I was telling myself, "OMG! All that just to buy one property??" 

One day, I will learn them all from my friend and apply them to my situation. 

We sipped our last drop of coffee and bid farewell. 

At least now I know what are “sub-sale” and the general procedures that entails. Baby steps, I said to myself. Maybe my friend would go on further in details of the form and deed the next time we meet up for coffee.

By : SK aka the potential buyer

MY Story : Thank You

New adjudication regime

Taken from The Star @Putik Lada series

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2012/3/30/columnists/putiklada/11005153&sec=putiklada

Putik Lada

The proposed Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Bill 2011 (CIPA) has the primary objective of addressing critical cash flow issues and reducing payment defaults by establishing a cheaper, speedier system of dispute resolution in the form of adjudication.

RECENTLY, there has been much interest in the construction industry in relation to the proposed Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Bill 2011 (CIPA).

Many professional bodies are offering courses and seminars to key construction industry officials to explain CIPA, and how it will affect them once it is passed in Parliament, which is expected to be in April.

The imminent passing of CIPA means that construction companies need to be prepared for the new regime of statutory adjudication.

Construction industry players have themselves been pushing the Government to enact a CIPA-type legislation since 2003 to address the industry’s cash flow problems.

CIPA’s primary objective is to address these critical cash flow issues – removing the practice of conditional payments (“pay when paid” and “pay if paid”) and reducing payment defaults by establishing a cheaper, speedier system of dispute resolution in the form of adjudication.

Under CIPA, every construction contract made in writing that relates to construction work carried out in Malaysia would be affected by the regime of adjudication.

This means that if you have entered into a construction contract and there is a problem with payment, an adjudication process can be commenced either by or against you.

From a quick reading of the Bill, the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre of Arbitration (KLRCA) will be the mainstay of the entire process.

KLRCA is already conducting a nationwide roadshow to educate people on CIPA.

However, the Bill also suggests that parties who wish to adjudicate matters would have to take an active role in pursuing their claims.

Parties will be subjected to compulsory adjudication or statutory adjudication –meaning both parties will be dragged into the adjudication process which is dictated by CIPA.

This does not mean that adjudication will block your right to arbitration or to go to court to litigate matters.

The purpose of adjudication is to hurry along cash flow and facilitate payment in the construction industry.

Parties are free to opt for arbitration or court litigation to deal with the legal matters.

CIPA simply provides a statutory right for the parties to demand payment for work done and to create a simple process to ensure that a decision and payment is made – via the process of adjudication.

Parties can commence adjudication and concurrently arbitrate or litigate the matter. Of course, the adjudication process will be terminated if the dispute is decided by arbitration or the court before the adjudication decision can be made. If however, the adjudication decision comes first then it is a binding decision and payment must be made. 

In short, statutory adjudication has the following characteristics: 

> It is a mandatory and statutory process that does not require the agreement of the parties to commence the process;

> It offers a faster process compared to arbitration and court litigation because the time frame is as prescribed by CIPA. It is the only form of dispute resolution that has a statutory time period in which the dispute must be resolved in 45 working days; and

> It provides a binding decision on a payment dispute.

The parties can choose their own adjudicator or request for KLRCA to choose an adjudicator on their behalf.

There are many procedures to be complied with by the parties and the time frame is dictated by the provisions of CIPA.

The entire adjudication process, including the time required to decide the case, would be approximately 100 working days. The adjudication process can be summarised by the following steps:

> Payment Claim: The unpaid party serves a Payment Claim on the non-paying party. The non-paying party would then serve the Payment Response on the unpaid party in reply to the claim within 10 working days. (Either party has a right to refer the dispute to adjudication)

> Initiation of Adjudication: The adjudication proceeding is initiated by the serving of a Notice of Adjudication by the claimant on the respondent.

> Nomination of Adjudicator: An adjudicator is nominated by the agreement of both parties in the dispute within 10 working days from the service of the notice or to request for the adjudicator to be nominated by the director of the KLRCA. The KLRCA has five working days to nominate the same.

> Adjudication Claim: Once the adjudicator is nominated and has accepted the terms and conditions and relevant fees, the claimant is to serve the Adjudication Claim on the respondent within 10 working days upon receipt of the acceptance by the adjudicator whereupon the respondent is to then serve the Adjudication Response on the claimant within 10 working days; the claimant may then serve a further Adjudication Reply within five working days.

> Commencement of Adjudication: The adjudication would then begin. KLRCA shall be informed of the commencement. The adjudicator shall direct that reasonable proportion of the adjudicator’s fees in equal shares be deposited in advance to the Director of KLRCA as security. Parties can represent themselves or choose to be represented by a lawyer.

> Decision: The Adjudicator has to reach a decision not later than 45 working days from the service of the Adjudication Response or Adjudication Reply, whichever is later. An adjudication decision which is not made within the specified period is void.

The adjudicator may also direct full payment of the fees and expenses to be deposited with the Director of KLRCA prior to the release of the adjudication decision to the parties.

A copy of the decision shall be provided not only to the parties but a copy must be served on the Director of KLRCA as well.

It is not clear whether CIPA would effectively address the cash flow problems in the construction industry but Malaysia is one of five countries who have opted to adopt this form of legislation.

The other countries are Britain, some States and Territories in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. We can only wait and see.

■ The writer is the chairman of the National Young Lawyers Committee. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

Are Malaysians really racists?

Article taken from the Star. The link is here:-

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=putiklada&file=/2012/3/16/columnists/putiklada/10925623&sec=Putik%20Lada

Putik Lada

PUTIK LADA By RICHARD WEE

Race relations laws will assist the authorities to manage race relations, to clarify any uncertainty, but may to a certain extent suggest that Malaysians are, perhaps, racists.

IT is of crucial importance for the citizens of any growing nation to also grow intellectually. A mature nation is not just a nation of financial wealth, but a nation filled with people who can articulate their points intellectually and critically, and do so calmly and with poise.

In 2007 and 2008, the National Young Lawyers Committee of the Bar Council (NYLC) held a series of forums – known as “Siri Pemikiran Kritis” (SPK) – which encouraged open debates and discussions of issues which affected the people and the nation.

These debates and discussions included issues relating to the economy, civil liberties, and human rights. It was hoped that these forums would activate quality dialogues, over rhetoric and emotional outbursts.

The series was very well received. The panel of invited speakers ranged from national leaders to NGO members.

The attendees were mostly normal Malaysians who cared for the country and who were keen to hear the views of the panel speakers.

As the name of the series suggests, its purpose was to encourage critical thinking. The forums took a standard format.

The NYLC would invite a few speakers who were well versed with the topic, and have a moderator to host.

After each speaker presented his thoughts on the topic at hand, the floor would be open for the attendees to pose queries and sometimes debate with the panel speakers.

The very first SPK was held on Jan 11, 2007, and the topic was the New Economic Policy. It was a good start, and eventually, eight further forums were held.

This year, the NYLC is reviving the SPK series. This is part of the NYLC’s on-going community programme, which includes not only offering people legal and non-legal assistance, but also to educate and engage via public forums such as the SPK.

The idea of public forums where Malaysians can gather and listen to the ideas and views of others, and partake in open dialogues, drove the current NYLC team to re-visit the successful SPK.

To kick start the 2012 version of the SPK, the NYLC will host a forum on the issue of the proposed race relations law in Malaysia – “Race Relations Laws: Backwards or Forwards?”

Law Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Aziz, announced that a Bill would be presented in Parliament, which would be in similar vein with the race relations laws of other countries.

What are race relations laws? In its simplest sense, race relations laws govern the relations of different races in a country. In the United Kingdom and the United States, laws governing race relations were passed and are used to manage the different races.

Do we need such laws in Malaysia? Does Malaysia not already have a sufficient legislative framework to govern race relations? How have we been governing race relations since 1957? Is our Federal Constitution a sufficient guide on race relations? Is it not enough for race relations be governed by honest and benevolent government policies?

Perhaps the new laws would assist the authorities to manage race relations. Arguably, there is an opportunity to clarify any uncertainty.

To a certain extent, the proposed race relations law suggests that Malaysians are, perhaps, racists. Only in countries where racism is rampant, or where it is damaging the roots of the society, would such a law be necessary.

Are Malaysians really racists?

That would be a question which only the Malaysian people can answer.

It is possible that this country is not, by majority, filled with racists, but instead that Malaysia has been subjected to unfortunate and sometimes insidiously enforced policies, which gives the impression that we are racists.

Taking a general view of Malaysian society, there is hardly any open, blatant racism.

For example, in the US, at the peak of racism, African Americans were not allowed to share seats in buses with White Americans in some states.

That was a dark moment in American history and their Senate had to intervene with laws to legislate that.

Policies in America also changed to discourage segregation.

Unlike in the US, any Malaysian can hitch a ride on a bus and share seats with people of different races. This is, of course, a simplistic example. Perhaps Malaysians may feel otherwise.

People may feel that we need such laws. Malaysians may also feel that we should discuss and perhaps debate on this proposed law.

So, do we need race relations laws in Malaysia? Or do we actually need race relations policies instead? And if we do introduce race relations laws, what would they contain?

So many questions. So many issues.

That being the case, we invite you make your way to the upcoming SPK Forum, which will be held on Saturday, March 31, at the Bar Council Auditorium in Kuala Lumpur from 10am to 2pm.

The forum will be initiated by Senator Gan Ping Sieu who is also Youth and Sports Deputy Minister. The speakers will be Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Farish Noor, and Faisal Moideen. It will be moderated by Syahredzan Johan.

Please register with the Bar Council by contacting Janet Nathan, the Executive Officer in charge at janet@malaysianbar.org.my, as seats are limited.

> The writer is the chairperson of the National Young Lawyers Committee. PutikLada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.

Scoutmaster has right to bail, says Bar Council

©Malay Mail
by Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

PETALING JAYA: The volunteer scoutmaster who allegedly molested 11 schoolgirls, all aged 14, and his 15-year-old daughter has a right to bail, says Bar Council member Richard Wee.

Petaling Jaya deputy police chief Supt Meor Hamdan Meor Mohamad told reporters the 45-year-old was being investigated under Section 354 of the Penal Code under assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty.

Wee, also the National Young Lawyers Committee chairman, said although the court could deny bail, it was unlikely as Section 354 is a bailable offense.

“Under the law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” he told The Malay Mail.

Five of the girls’ parentslodged police reports last Wednesday and the man was arrested within 24 hours. 

He was released on bail the following day. Families of the victims were baffled the suspect was allowed bail and questioned why he was allowed to return home to his daughter.

They also criticised the police for releasing the man only a day after he was arrested. Wee stressed the focus should not be on the bail but how fast the police can work with the deputy public prosecutor (DPP).

“It is incumbent upon the police and DPP to work as fast as possible to make sure police have the accurate information and get this person charged,” he said.

Wee also said the police could seek a remand order from the magistrate’s court.

“Under the law, police can ask for a remand but it is their prerogative.”

BFM Interview - No Excuses: Things You Should Know About the Law