All the info you need is at the first post/page of the thread .

There's a link to search if a lawyer has a Practising Certificate for 2011. You can also check if there has been disciplinary proceedings taken out against a particular lawyer.

The 'license' (Practising Certificate) for an advocate and solicitor is called the 'Sijil Annual' and it must be renewed annually.

No Sijil Annual for 2011, not allowed to practise in 2011. 

How to check if the license belong to him? Well, the Practising Certificate [PC] is issued under his/her personal name, not the name of the firm, so you can confirm it right there.

Every advocate and solicitor has a registration number, which is the initial letter of their first name, followed by a number.

Like Mr Sam Ting Long of Messrs Sam Ting Long & Co. would be, for example - S/25

If you want to know if Mr Sam has a valid PC for 2011, search for it at the 'Find a Lawyer' link. Only those with valid a PC for 2011 would pop up.

If not, then there's something wrong with Mr Sam Ting Long 

Sure, as long as he is not suspended or struck off the rolls (disbarred from practice)
There could be hundreds of situations, but basically if the lawyer fails to uphold the best interests of his client, he could be found to be negligent. It differs from case to case. Hard to come up with a definite answer. It could range from merely missing deadlines in a conveyancing matter to the extreme of committing CBT or fraud of client's money in client's account 
Cheating is a very serious accusation which can not only lead to the lawyer being disbarred from practice, but would also entail him to criminal prosecution.

Complaints against lawyers are directed to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board, based in Wisma Maran, KL. Once the a complaint is made, there are several steps in which the Board will consider the complaint. It may be dismissed summarily, or it may proceed to the setting up of a Disciplinary Committee - and a hearing would be conducted to hear the complaint on its merits.

The Bar Council would then make an order against the lawyer once the Board has made it's final finding into the complaint and recommend the type of action/punishment to be taken against the lawyer involved.

Each complaint will be considered on its merits and must be backed by sufficient documentation. 

For more info - check out the Board's site:
http://www.asdb.org.my/

Can somebody advise me what to do..

i bought a lelong condo 2 years ago. everything was running smoothly and no problem with the bank loan.
auction house bank- maybank
my loan banker - also maybank.
should be no problem, right?

but my lawyer has dragged this things for 2 years!
i keep follow up her, but she keep on saying "not yet"
until one day - the unit that i bought - bertampal with "CONDO FOR LELONG'
whaat??
i confront my lawyer - then she terhegeh2 to follow up with auctioner lawyer.
when i call my lawyer to query the status - she off her HP, changed her HP number and refused to provide me her new number.

She even asked me to follow up with auctioner's lawyer myself and do some rayuan since i already pay all the maintainance fee for this unit for 2 years.

what is happening?
i feel like give a full swing punch on her face for dragging me into this kind of misery and headace.

what should i do now?
this issue still not settle.

please advise me what to do...
please..... thank you..

Humble apologies,

That's as far as I can go tonight. All other queries shall be replied tmr. 

Dead tired after long outstation trip. 

Cheerios. 

That land would belong to the government or the registered proprietor, as the case may be.

The status of your grandfather and now mother on the land are as squatters only. And squatters have no right under the law.

Even if you're on the land for 100 years, you cannot claim it as your own. The doctrine of 'long uninterrupted user of land' is not applicable in our country. With a Court Order, your mother and/or the tenant can be evicted from the land and all fixtures would be destroyed.

What this person is proposing sounds like a scam. The fact that 'undertable' is mentioned should raise an alarm that this could be trouble.

I would advise you not to proceed with this.

Good job,mate. Your initiative is much applauded

Yes, the doctrine of long uninterrupted user and adverse possession is basically the same - it's when a person takes possession of a vacant piece of land which was previously uninhabited and pretty much unclaimed, basically, and that persons spends his own money to clear the land, cultivate it, develop it, build fixtures, etc and lives there uninterrupted for about 20-30 years above. Suddenly one day Mr.A comes over, shows the occupier a copy of the grant with Mr.A's name endorsed on it, and demands for the occupier to surrender legal possession of the property. Under that doctrine, the occupier can compel Mr.A to remain as the occupier until Mr.A reimburses or compensates the occupier. Mr.A cannot merely get a Court order to compel the occupier to leave empty handed. He has to compensate the occupier accordingly first.

So, point no.1 is correct.

With regard to points no.2 and 3 - you have misunderstood it slightly.

Under Malaysian law - statute takes precedence. The NLC is a statute passed by Parliament.

Malaysia followed the Torrens system from Australia - and incorporated it into a statute, i.e. the NLC.

We did not follow the UK example, which recognises the doctrine of adverse possession - that is why your research came up with the phrase - The NLC does not recognise the common law concept of “adverse possession,” something which is alien to the Torrens system.

That phrase is accurate.

The Limitation Act (LA) is also a statute. You have only taken a particular portion of a particular section of the Act. The LA is an act which deals with the time period in which a person can institute legal proceedings. Like for breach of contract it would be 6 years from the date of breach.

For recovery of land, it would be 12 years from the date the right to recover accrues (eg from the date of signing of the SPA).

That phrase, if i'm not mistaken, would relate to an extension of time when there are cases of adverse possession, i.e the occupier cannot say that he's been staying on the land for 20 years and Mr.A did nothing (assuming that the land has always been registered under Mr.A's name) for 20 years, so he's barred by the LA which says that he must file a suit within 12 years.

Mr.A can rely on that section which allows his right to being to accrue upon discovery of the existence of the occupier, i.e if Mr.A only found out 2 years ago that the occupier has been on his property - he still has another 10 years to file a suit. The occupier cannot turn around and argue that he has been there for 20 years and thus, any action is time-barred.

Coming back to point no.3 - Statute is essentially the laws of Malaysia - any law passed by Parliament would be an Act or Ordinance.

So, in Malaysia, the occupier is not recognised as an occupier, but is recognised as a mere squatter. Squatters have no rights and the registered proprietor (RP) can file a suit to compel him to surrender legal possession of the property without the need to compensate that person for anything at all. The RP can institute enforcement proceedings and everything constructed on the land can be dismantled, or destroyed by the RP if the squatter still refuses to leave after the Court order has been duly served on him.

The above is not mentioned anywhere in the NLC right? That is because it has been decided by the Courts. After statutes, decided cases by the Courts would be authority to be relied on. Decided cases basically explain and apply the law in factual situations.

The main case which decided the fate of squatters in Malaysia would be [/B]Sidek & 461 Ors v.Government of Perak [1982] 1 MLJ 313[

The above principle would apply to land owned by the State as well, although the position of State land would be covered under Section 425 of the NLC which states:
“Any person who, without lawful authority, occupies or erects any building on any State land, reserved land or mining land... shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.”

That is the position in Malaysia as the law stands.

Hope it helps.

I've already advised you according to the law. There's nothing more I can advise here.

Separate the wheat from the chaff, add a dose of reality, and you can see how this story will end,brother.

Why don't you open a thread in the open forum itself and gauge the response from the other members of the forum and see what they have to say about this?

All the best. 

Take a look at that agreement. See whether there is a clause which states that  " this agreement is binding upon the successors-in-title, heirs, personal representatives, etc" or something along those lines.

If there is, then your mum is covered.

What do you mean by my mother hold agreement vs the person hold strate title.  ???

I thought you said the SPA does not state 2 carparks but only one? So what agreement is there for her to hold? Vs the person holding strata title? I thought you said not yet receive strata title.



If your mum signs the SPA which states 1 carpark, it's game over and there's no chance of winning a claim for 2 carparks. If she still insists on 2 carparks, don't sign the agreement and abort the deal then.

What is this private company? A moneylender? Licensed or not?
Are the documents legitimate?

If all is legitimate, then there is a serious breach of contract by the vendor. Your fren can sue the vendor and seek for a full refund of the purchase price, plus all fees and costs incurred.

With regard to the house, the vendor cannot assign ownership of it to your fren without first obtaining a deed of receipt and reassignment from the company - to relinquish their rights over the property. The company is considered to be the beneficial owner of the property - but for them to take over vacant posession, they would have to follow the procedure in their agremeent.

eg, for banks it would be by way of auction.

Your fren can't do anything with regard to the house. The company has the first right over it. Your fren's only remedy would be to sue the vendor for the return of all monies paid.

This is a property title, not a piece of cake which you can split 60-40 and everyone goes back home happy. If there's 60% of the loan sum remaining which is unpaid, the creditor can institute auction proceedings, put it up for auction, sell it, take the proceeds, pay off whatever is due and owing plus auction fees & misc, and return the balance (if any) to the borrower

Same goes for bank - if the money from the auction is enough to cover the sum due and owing, any balance/excess will be given to the borrower. If there is a shortfall, there would be a civil suit to claim for the balance and bankruptcy proceedings await if the sum is RM30k and above.
Well, the lawyer ought to have sight of all the original documents in relation to the property - i.e. if the vendor is the original purchaser from the developer and he took a loan - then there ought to be the original SPA, the original deed of assignment and original deed of r&r. Since your fren bought it for cash i'm assuming that the property was free from encumbrances? Then there ought to be the original deed of r&r in the vendor's possession. When there's no separate individual title, the trail of original deed of assignments would be the form of proof of ownership of the property.

If there is a loan given out by any party - that party would hold the original documents - up and until your loan is settled and ultimately, a deed of r&r is executed and the lender reassigns all the rights over the property back to you.

So, does your fren have a proper trail of documents? If the company did indeed gave out a loan to the vendor and has a deed of assignment to show for it, he ought to possess the complete set of original docs as well.

Check with him and see. I doubt if the lawyer would be so careless as to omit such important documents! 

That is possible for a property with individual title but not for property without individual title.

With a title, you can create multiple charges over the title. But where any of the chargees  (bank/creditor) want to go for foreclosure to sell off the property due to a breach, the first chargee gets all the proceeds first and if there's any balance, it goes to the second chargee, and so on and so forth.

In reality, it is rarely the case as the second chargee would most likely end up with peanuts so it is highly unlikely that any party would want to grant you a loan and sit in as a second chargee. Doesn't make much sense, unless the first charge created was for a small loan which is much less than the price of the property. But how often does that happen?

Since there's no title in your case - the only security is by way of deed of assignment (DOA) - and the assignee (bank/creditor) has been assigned with the whole of the property. The assignor (owner) cannot deal with the property in any way as the original documents are all held by the assignee.

So no other party would in reality come in and agree to give a loan without any security documents whatsoever to protect their interests.

So your example of them holding photocopies or nothing at all is not realistic and is unlikely the scenario.

Best to go to the ground to find out the exact scenario rather than coming up with hypothetical situations which would not help to resolve things at all but would only add to the aggravation of the matter.

Good luck