Land Law

CIMB Bank Berhad v. AmBank (M) Berhad & Ors [2017] 1 LNS 1132

The Federal Court by a majority decided that a chargee comes within the meaning of ‘purchaser’ under the proviso to section 340(3) of the National Land Code 1965 and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that AmBank (M) Berhad, a bona fide subsequent purchaser, is entitled to the defence of deferred indefeasiblity. Benjamin Dawson, Koh San Tee and Chan Shao Kang acted for AmBank (M) Berhad.

Ambank (M) Bhd v CIMB Bank Bhd & Ors [2015] MLJU 2113

This case revolves around the defence of deferred indefeasibility under the proviso of Section 340(3) of the National Land Code (“NLC”). Mr. Benjamin Dawson has successfully argued at the Court of Appeal that AmBank (M) Bhd, a registered chargee, is a bona fide subsequent purchaser within the proviso and its interest is indefeasible notwithstanding that the prior charge was discharged using a forged document.

HSBC Bank (M) Bhd v. Asia Transport Service (M) Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 MLJ 94

Mr. Benjamin Dawson successfully canvassed for the removal of a private caveat under Section 237(1) of the National Land Code 1965 (“the Code”).

NKM Properties Sdn Bhd v. Rakyat First Merchant Bankers Bhd [1992] 2 MLJ 349

This case concerned the interpretation of Section 259(2)(c) of the Code. The Supreme Court held that the reserve price must be fixed at either the same reserve price as the last unsuccessful auction or at a lower reserve price and accordingly allowed Mr. Benjamin Dawson’s cross-appeal.

 

Leave a Reply