legal assignment malaysia

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Conventus Law

More results...

Malaysia – Statutory Assignment Vs Equitable Assignment.

December 4, 2023 by Rohin Pujari

This article attempts to provide a brief overview of the differences between statutory assignment and equitable assignment. The actual application of the general rules described here would be subject to the applicable distinct facts and circumstances.

What is Assignment?

An assignment is a transfer of rights or liabilities such as those that arise under an instrument, chose in action[1], or debt. An assignment can either be a statutory assignment or an equitable assignment.

In Malaysia, an assignment complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was described as a ‘statutory assignment’ and an assignment not complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was a ‘non-statutory assignment’ i.e., an equitable assignment.[2] The conditions of a statutory assignment are as follows:[3]

(a) it must be absolute and did not purport to be by way of charge only;

(b) the assignment was in writing under the hand of the assignor; and

(c) express notice in writing thereof had been given to the debtor or trustee.

Meanwhile, an equitable assignment gives the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The mode or form of assignment is absolutely immaterial provided the intention of the parties is clear.[4]

Rules that Govern Assignments

(a) Notice

Written notice is an essential part of a statutory assignment. Therefore, it is ineffective unless strictly accurate – accurate, for instance, as regards the date of the assignment and the amount due from the debtor.[5]

However, notice is not necessary to perfect an equitable assignment. Even without notice to the debtor the title to the assignee is complete, not only against the assignor personally, but also against the persons who stand in the same position as the assignor, as, for instance, his trustee in bankruptcy, a judgement creditor or a person claiming under a later assignment made without consideration.[6]

In regard to the form of notice, as mentioned earlier, a statutory assignment must comply with the form of notice required under Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whilst for an equitable assignment, no particular form is required to constitute a valid equitable assignment.

Additionally, it must be noted that although notice is not required for equitable assignments, an assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to get priority over other assignee(s). In this regard, the Federal Court in Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In Receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 MLJ 369 explained in detail about the importance of notice:

“ We need to say a few words more about the great desirability of giving notice of assignment of a debt by an assignee to the debtor, even though absence of such notice does not affect the validity of the equitable assignment as between the assignor and the assignee. If notice is not given, the assignee must give credit for any payment made to the assignor by the debtor. This rule means that, by extension, even if the assignor assigns once more the debt to another person in fraud or otherwise on the earlier assignee, and that other person gives notice to the debtor; and if the debtor pays that other person or the second assignee, then the earlier assignee must still give credit to the debtor for his payment thus, for the debtor cannot be blamed for doing lawfully in ignorance of the title of the earlier assignee who has failed to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. Notice to debtor is for the protection of the assignee himself. It is this effect of what the debtor does lawfully as described that dims the view of the true role of the nemo dat rule in the resolution of disputed claims to a same debt. The money paid to the ‘second assignee’ can, of course, be recovered by the earlier assignee on the nemo dat principle. ”

(b)  An assignee takes subject to equities

For both statutory assignment and equitable assignment, the assignee takes ‘subject to equities’, that is, subject to all such defences as might have prevailed against the assignor.

The general rule, both at law and in equity, is that no person can acquire title to a chose in action…from one who has himself no title to it.[7] In other words, the assignee can be in a no better position than the assignor was prior to the assignment.[8]

(c)  Rights incapable of assignment

Some choses in action are not assignable, and not every right which arises under or out of a contract can be assigned.[9] An example of rights incapable of assignment is where the nature of the contract is intended to be personal, therefore, it will be meaningless if it is assigned to another person.

Effect of Assignment

A statutory assignment has the sole intended effect of facilitating an assignee to sue in his own name directly irrespective of whether the chose in action is an equitable chose in action or a legal chose in action.[10]

Meanwhile, the effect of an equitable assignment depends on whether the assignment is absolute or not. An absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action entitles the assignee to bring an action in his own name.[11] But a non-absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action does not entitle the assignee to sue in his own name but requires him to join the assignor as a party.[12]

For further information, please contact:

Nur Izzatie Azlan, Azmi & Associates

[email protected]

• ‘Chose in action’ is a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession (Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Woo Sai Wa [1997] 5 MLJ 441 (High Court)).  
• MBF Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (T/A New General Trading) [2002] 5 MLJ 536 (High Court).  
• Ibid.  
• Williams Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454 (House of Lords).  
• Leong, A. P. B. (1998). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (2nd ed.). Butterworths Asia, at page 861.  
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 400.  
• Meagher, R. P., Heydon, J. D., & Leeming, M. J. (2022). Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th ed., p. 284). Butterworths LexisNexis.  
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 402.  
• Lim Chon Jet @ Lim Chon Jat & Ors v Wee Ai Hua & Anor [2022] 6 MLJ 243 (Court of Appeal).  

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

Malaysia – Pitfalls In Redeemable Convertible Preference Shares (RCPs) Investments: Defensive Strategies For Investor Protection

Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion In Malaysia’s Corporate Sector: A Legal Overview.

Enforceability Of Foreign Court Judgements In Malaysia

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

Azmi & Associates

Legal Consulting : Conception to Completion

Statutory Assignment vs Equitable Assignment

This article attempts to provide a brief overview of the differences between statutory assignment and equitable assignment. The actual application of the general rules described here would be subject to the applicable distinct facts and circumstances.

What is Assignment?

An assignment is a transfer of rights or liabilities such as those that arise under an instrument, chose in action 1 , or debt. An assignment can either be a statutory assignment or an equitable assignment.

In Malaysia, an assignment complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was described as a ‘statutory assignment’ and an assignment not complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was a ‘non-statutory assignment’ i.e., an equitable assignment. 2 The conditions of a statutory assignment are as follows: 3

(a) it must be absolute and did not purport to be by way of charge only;

(b) the assignment was in writing under the hand of the assignor; and

(c) express notice in writing thereof had been given to the debtor or trustee.

Meanwhile, an equitable assignment gives the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The mode or form of assignment is absolutely immaterial provided the intention of the parties is clear. 4

Rules that Govern Assignments

Written notice is an essential part of a statutory assignment. Therefore, it is ineffective unless strictly accurate – accurate, for instance, as regards the date of the assignment and the amount due from the debtor. 5

However, notice is not necessary to perfect an equitable assignment. Even without notice to the debtor the title to the assignee is complete, not only against the assignor personally, but also against the persons who stand in the same position as the assignor, as, for instance, his trustee in bankruptcy, a judgement creditor or a person claiming under a later assignment made without consideration. 6

In regard to the form of notice, as mentioned earlier, a statutory assignment must comply with the form of notice required under Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whilst for an equitable assignment, no particular form is required to constitute a valid equitable assignment.

Additionally, it must be noted that although notice is not required for equitable assignments, an assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to get priority over other assignee(s). In this regard, the Federal Court in Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In Receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 MLJ 369 explained in detail about the importance of notice:

“ We need to say a few words more about the great desirability of giving notice of assignment of a debt by an assignee to the debtor, even though absence of such notice does not affect the validity of the equitable assignment as between the assignor and the assignee. If notice is not given, the assignee must give credit for any payment made to the assignor by the debtor. This rule means that, by extension, even if the assignor assigns once more the debt to another person in fraud or otherwise on the earlier assignee, and that other person gives notice to the debtor; and if the debtor pays that other person or the second assignee, then the earlier assignee must still give credit to the debtor for his payment thus, for the debtor cannot be blamed for doing lawfully in ignorance of the title of the earlier assignee who has failed to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. Notice to debtor is for the protection of the assignee himself. It is this effect of what the debtor does lawfully as described that dims the view of the true role of the nemo dat rule in the resolution of disputed claims to a same debt. The money paid to the ‘second assignee’ can, of course, be recovered by the earlier assignee on the nemo dat principle. ”

(b) An assignee takes subject to equities

For both statutory assignment and equitable assignment, the assignee takes ‘subject to equities’, that is, subject to all such defences as might have prevailed against the assignor.

The general rule, both at law and in equity, is that no person can acquire title to a chose in action…from one who has himself no title to it. 7 In other words, the assignee can be in a no better position than the assignor was prior to the assignment. 8

(c) Rights incapable of assignment

Some choses in action are not assignable, and not every right which arises under or out of a contract can be assigned. 9 An example of rights incapable of assignment is where the nature of the contract is intended to be personal, therefore, it will be meaningless if it is assigned to another person.

Effect of Assignment

A statutory assignment has the sole intended effect of facilitating an assignee to sue in his own name directly irrespective of whether the chose in action is an equitable chose in action or a legal chose in action. 10

Meanwhile, the effect of an equitable assignment depends on whether the assignment is absolute or not. An absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action entitles the assignee to bring an action in his own name. 11 But a non-absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action does not entitle the assignee to sue in his own name but requires him to join the assignor as a party. 12

• ‘Chose in action’ is a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession (Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Woo Sai Wa [1997] 5 MLJ 441 (High Court)).
• MBF Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (T/A New General Trading) [2002] 5 MLJ 536 (High Court).
• Williams Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454 (House of Lords).
• Leong, A. P. B. (1998). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (2nd ed.). Butterworths Asia, at page 861.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 400.
• Meagher, R. P., Heydon, J. D., & Leeming, M. J. (2022). Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th ed., p. 284). Butterworths LexisNexis.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 402.
• Lim Chon Jet @ Lim Chon Jat & Ors v Wee Ai Hua & Anor [2022] 6 MLJ 243 (Court of Appeal).

Written by:

Nur Izzatie Azlan & Narina Aireen Hilmy Zaini  ( [email protected] )

Corporate Communications Azmi & Associates 28 November 2023

Related Articles

Pitfalls in redeemable convertible preference shares (rcps) investments: defensive strategies for investor protection, enforceability of foreign court judgements in malaysia, foreign investors’ participation in the upstream service sector for the oil & gas (o&g) industry in malaysia, expanding opportunities: malaysia’s 2024 investment incentives for foreign investors, climate change bill: what you have to know in 2 minutes, privacy overview.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

Powered by WhatsApp Chat

WhatsApp Chat is free, download and try it now here!

• Press Statements
• AGMs and EGMs
• In Memoriam
• Legal and General News
• Court Judgments
• Peer Support Network
• Sijil Annual and Payments
• Practice Management
• Professional Development
• Opportunities for Practice
• Mentor-Mentee Programmes
• Laws, BC Rulings and Practice Directions
• Become a Member
• Legal Directories
• BC Legal Aid Centres
• State Bar Committees
• Law Firms | Areas of Practice
• Useful Forms
• Malaysian Bar and Bar Council
• President's Corner
• Previous Committees
• Advertising
• Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award
• Compensation Fund

New login method: If first-time login, the password is your NRIC No. Call 20502191 for help.

If you have lost your password, you must set a new password. To begin this process, please key in your 12-digit NRIC No. below.

Please enter name of firm or registered email address, indicate whether you want to retrieve your firm's username or password, and click "Submit".

Registration ( restricted to Members of the Malaysian Bar )

Fields marked with an asterisk ( * ) are required.

Please key in your membership number, and click "GO"

Please key in your pupil code, and click "Submit"

Change Password

• Legal Directory
• Online Shop

• BC Online Facilities
• Login Type 2
• Login Type 3
• Login Type 4
• Resolutions
• General News
• Members' Opinions
• Go back to list

RIGHTS OF ASSIGNORS AND ASSIGNEES TO SUE UNDER AN ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT AND ASSIGNMENT BY WAY OF CHARGE USED AS A SECURITY FOR LOAN

“In consideration of the Facility granted to the Assignor upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the Assignor as beneficial owner hereby absolutely assigns all of the Assignor's rights and title to and interest whatsoever in the Property including all rights and interest of the Assignor in the Sale and Purchase Agreement to the Bank.”

In this respect, one is often faced with the question of whether an assignor can found an action against the developer without involving the assignee. Likewise, can the assignee sue the developer directly without involving the assignor? The law in this area is at least settled after the date of coming into force of the Civil Law Act 1956 ("CLA") which is 7 April 1956 for West Malaysia and 1 April 1972 for East Malaysia as s 4(3) CLA provides that if the assignment is a statutory assignment under that section, then the assignee can sue the developer/debtor directly without the concurrence of the assignor which means the assignor cannot sue the developer/debtor directly without the concurrence of the assignee unless it is an assignment by way of charge. Position of the English law prior to 1873 In fact, s4(3) CLA is similar to s 25(6) of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 . It is, therefore, relevant to examine the English position of an assignment and English authorities before and after the 1873 Act as courts in West Malaysia shall apply the common law of England and the rules of equity as administered in England on 7 April 1956; for Sabah as administered in England on 1 December 1951 and for Sarawak as administered in England on 12 December 1949 subject to local circumstances. (See s 3 CLA.) In England prior to 1873, common law and equity were administered in different courts – the common law courts (the Court of Exchequer, Court of Common Pleas and the Court of King’s Bench) would enforce legal rights and the court of equity (Chancery Court), equitable rights. Hence, common law courts would only recognise legal rights, but not an assignment of legal choses in action save in the case of bills of exchange, bills of lading and stocks and shares in incorporated companies. It follows that in the case of assignment of equitable choses of action, the assignee could always bring an action in the Chancery Court in his own name if it is an absolute assignment of equitable choses or by joining the assignor if it is a non–absolute assignment of equitable choses in action. On the other hand, an assignee of a legal assignment of rights, whether absolute or not, could not sue the debtor at common law since there is no privity of contract between the two – a legal principle, albeit the assignor could always sue the debtor for the recovery of the debt in the common law courts. There would be no problem if the assignor agreed to sue, but in most cases he would not be bothered after having assigned his legal rights over the debt. However, equity has always allowed the assignment of both legal and equitable choses of action. Thus in the case of an assignment of legal choses of action, the action had to be brought in the name of the assignor but equity would compel the assignor to lend his name to the assignee in the proceedings. As a result, a legal assignee had to go to two courts in order to enforce an assignment of legal choses of action – the court of equity to compel the assignor to lend his name to sue the debtor and the court of common law to commence the action against the debtor in the assignor’s name. Position of the English law after 1873 The old courts of common law and equity were then abolished by the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 which established in their place a single Supreme Court of Judicature comprising now a High Court with three divisions – King’s Bench, Chancery and Family. Each of these divisions could now administer both law and equity, but the latter is to prevail in the event of a conflict. This has brought a significant change in the position of an equitable assignee who can now enforce an equitable assignment in any of the courts unlike prior to 1873 when he could only do so at the Chancery Court. As regards the assignee of legal choses in action, now he need only to commence one legal action in any of the divisional courts by joining the assignor as a co–plaintiff. However, if the assignor refuses to be so joined, the assignee will still have to sue the assignor as a co–defendant with the debtor. The cause of action against the assignor would still be invoking the equitable jurisdiction to compel the assignor to lend his name to the assignee and the common law jurisdiction to enforce the legal rights against the debtor in the assignor’s name. Hence, even though the 1873 Act fused the administration of law and equity, it did not really fuse law and equity per se as the oft–quoted saying goes, “the two streams have met and now run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix.” Statutory Assignment under s4(3) CLA Apart from abolishing the old courts of common law and equity, the 1873 Act also introduced a statutory assignment. S 25(6) of the 1873 Act has now been replaced by s 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is similar to our present s 4(3) CLA. In simple terms, an assignee of a valid statutory assignment can now sue the debtor in his own name. This is effectual in law to transfer to the assignee from the date of notice of assignment the legal right to a debt or chose in action, all legal and other remedies and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor. However, for the Clause to create a statutory assignment under s 4(3), four conditions must first be satisfied, namely (1) the assignment is in respect of a debt or other legal chose in action; (2) the assignment must be in writing under the hand of the assignor; (3) express notice in writing of the assignment must be given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim the debt or chose in action; and (4) the assignment must be absolute and not purporting to be by way of charge only. S 4(3) CLA further provides that such an assignment is subject to equities having priority over the assignee, that is, the assignee takes the assignment subject to any defects in the assignor’s title and all other claims the debtor may have against the assignor. The assignment takes effect from the date of receipt of the notice of assignment by the debtor, an exception to the postal rule that acceptance takes effect upon posting. (See Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 404.) As regards condition (1), the “debt or other chose in action” must be one that is existing at the time of assignment, albeit the debt is payable later. ( Earle v Hemsworth [1928] All ER 602.) Also, the debt must be of an ascertained amount and it was held in Jones v Humphreys [1902] 1 KB 10 that whilst an assignment of so much of an income which “ shall be necessary and requisite for payment to you of the sum of 22l.10s. ” might define the sum, “ any further or other sums in which I may at any time hereafter become indebted to you " is too indefinite and would fall outside the ambit of s 25(6) of the 1873 Act as an assignment by way of charge. As respects condition (2), in order to be within s 4(3), the assignment has to be in writing under the hand of the assignor. In other words, if an agent signs the assignment, then this will be outside s 4(3). ( Wilson v Wilson 1880 5 Ex D 155.) Whilst s 4(3) does not prescribe the exact form of assignment, the assignment must still be one of absolute assignment and not by way of charge. Condition (3) requires an express notice of assignment in writing to be given to the debtor ( Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd & Anor v Lorrain Esme Osman & Ors [1987] 1 MLJ 502) even if the parties knew that he could not read and oral notice has been given ( Hockley and Papworth v Goldstein [1920] 90 LJKB  111) so that the debtor knows to whom he must now pay the debt. Consent from the debtor to the assignment is not necessary. ( Tan Ah Chim & Sons Sdn Bhd v Ooi Bee Tat & Anor  [1993] 3 MLJ 633.) The date of assignment must also be stated correctly, ( Stanley v English Fibres Industries Ltd (1899) 68 LJQB 839) albeit if no date is given at all, the notice is still not defective. ( Van Lynn Development Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607) The notice will also be bad if the amount of debt has been stated incorrectly. ( W F Harrison & Co v Burke [1956] 2 All ER 169.) Though s 4(3) does not prescribe a particular form of notice, where there is doubt, the notice should also specify that the assignee was to receive the money for itself as principal, not to account of or on behalf of the assignor or as its agent. ( United Overseas Bank Ltd v Singapore Engineers Ltd   [1966] 2 MLJ 267.) Upon receipt of the notice, the debtor must make all payments of the debt to the assignee and not the assignor and if he pays the assignor without the consent of the assignee, he may have to pay the assignee all over again. ( Malayawata Steel Berhad v Government of Malaysia & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 103, even though it involved an equitable assignment. See also Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd v Malaysian Airlines Sytem Bhd [1982] 2 MLJ 59.) Condition (4) is perhaps the most important, that is, the assignment must be absolute and not by way of charge. Generally, the requirements of an absolute assignment are: (1) the assignment must be in respect of the whole and not part of the debt ( Jones v Humphreys Ibid.); the assignment must not be conditional and (3) the assignment must not be “by way of charge” and labels ( BP (Sabah) Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Jubrin Enterprise (sued as a partnership firm & Ors) [1998] 4 MLJ 715) are not important in construction. Thus the oft–repeated question is if the assignor has a right to redeem the loan, is the assignment an absolute assignment? In this respect, it has been held more than a century ago that an assignment of a debt to secure a loan given to the assignor with the assignor’s right to reassignment upon redemption has been held to be an absolute assignment without affecting the absolute character of the assignment. ( Tancred v Delagoa Bay Ry [1889] 23 QBD 239 and Hughes v Pump House Hotel Co. [1902] 2 KB 190.) This applies equally to the assignor under the Clause. An assignment by way of charge is different as it only entitles the chargee to the right of repayment without involving a transfer of title to the chargee. For example, in Durham Brothers v Robertson [1898] 1QB 765 where the assignment only states that it is a security for advances “ until the money with added interest has been repaid ” and silent on the point of reassignment to the assignor with notice to the debtor, it was held that such an assignment is not absolute but one by way of charge because the debtor would not be able to know when the loan has been repaid and when the assignment has ceased since such an assignment ceases upon repayment and not upon reassignment. If the assignment fails to meet the above conditions of s 4(3), then the assignment will be an equitable assignment in which case the assignee has to join the assignor as a co–plaintiff or as a co–defendant, as the case may be, but the assignor is entitled to sue direct. Locus Standi Hence, where there is an absolute assignment under s 4(e), only the assignee can sue the developer/debtor, but not the assignor since the latter has already assigned all his rights and has no more right to sue. This works fine in a factoring agreement where the assignee factor can sue the debtor directly to recover the debt as the assignor creditor will not be interested in suing the debtor since he has already obtained the loan from the factor by divesting all his rights in the debt. ( The Chartered Bank v Rashid Bin Mohadmed [1986] 2 MLJ 219.) Likewise, if the assignor defaults in his loan repayment, the absolute assignee bank can always dispose of the property by way of assignment to a third party with notice to the developer and without the concurrence of the assignor borrower. However, the assignment if given by a company requires registration as a charge under s 108(3)(e) of the Companies Act 1965 because it is an equitable mortgage (see Chuah Eng Khong v Malayan Banking Berhad [1998] 3 MLJ 97 and Ng Wei Teck Michael & Anor v Oversea–Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1998] 1 SLR 55); otherwise the charge will be void against the liquidator and any creditor of the assignor. (s 108(1) Companies Act 1965 .)

But problems arise if during the currency of the absolute assignment, the assignor has a dispute with the developer particularly in relation to late delivery and defective workmanship. The assignor will find that he has no locus standi to sue the developer and has to run to the assignee to persuade the latter to personally sue the developer or sue in the name of the assignor. In most cases, the assignee bank will be reluctant to do so and it is always a time–consuming process to get the assignee to agree to this course of action, much to the advantage of the developer. The above legal position was well settled by the Malaysia’s highest court in Nouvau Mont Dor (M) Sdn Bhd v Faber Development Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 268 and Hipparion (M) Sdn Bhd v Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1989] 2 MLJ 149 which held that a clause such as the Clause (above) is an absolute assignment under s 4(3) CLA notwithstanding that the assignment would later be converted into a legal charge under the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC”) upon issuance of the individual title. However, it is common knowledge in the housing industry that this is unfair to the assignor if the assignee refuses to sue the developer, a fortiori during the boom years of the nineties when thousands of apartment and condominium units without individual strata titles were sold in Malaysia, and loans were secured by loan agreements and assignment with clauses of assignment not dissimilar from the one in Nouvau Mont Dor . Also, it takes years before strata titles are issued when the assignments are then converted into a legal charge under the NLC which would then confer the assignor now a chargor the right to have direct recourse against the developer. As a result, many High Court judges attempted to circumvent s 4(3) by holding that such assignment is outside s 4(3) CLA by applying a different construction to the principle laid down in Nouvau Mont Dor which is whether an assignment is an absolute one is to be gathered only from the four corners of the instrument itself even though the clauses of assignment were similar to the one in Nouvau Mont Dor . Further, some judges were of the view Nouvau Mont Dor had been overruled by the later Federal Court case in Chooi Siew Cheong v Lucky Height Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 513 which held that when construing a document, one must look at the “surrounding circumstances” and not at one clause in isolation. By doing so, the judges were able to hold that the assignment is by way of charge which entitles the assignor to sue the developer in his own name.

The High Courts in Loh Hoon Looi & Ors v Viewpoint Propertues (Sabah) Sdn Bhd [1995–4 MLJ 804], Lim Hock Lai v Hwa Kwong Development Sdn Bhd [2001] 5 CLJ 515, Max–Benefit Sdn Bhd v Phuah Thean An & Anor [2001] 1 MLJ 553 and Sakinas Sdn Bhd v Siew Yik Hau & Anor [2002] 5 MLJ 498 all held that whether an assignment was an absolute one would depend on the aim of the transaction, and if it was intended as a security for a loan, it could not be absolute and therefore the assignor was entitled to sue in his own name! Another judge in Pak Ki Yau & Anor v Kumpulan Promista Sdn Bhd [1999] 6 MLJ 220 held that as repayment of the loan as well as the execution and registration of the subsequent charge is an uncertain event, the result of which had made the assignment conditional and not absolute!

In Chan Min Swee v Melawangi Sdn Bhd [2000] 7 CLJ 1, the judge went even further to hold that even if the assignment was not absolute, the assignee bank must still be made a party to the action either as a co–plaintiff or a co– defendant on the ground that the assignee bank has an interest in the matter. The court also held that a letter of consent with reservation of rights from the assignee bank is not a good consent for the assignor to sue in his name.

To further protect the assignor purchaser, the Court of Appeal in Phileo Allied Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Bupinder Singh Avatar Singh & Anor [1999] 3 MLJ 157 held that as an absolute assignment is an equitable charge or mortgage, the assignee bank could only dispose of the property by way of a court order pursuant to Order 83 of the Rules of High Court (“RHC”), triggering off a deluge of foreclosure cases being filed in the courts. Finally, the Federal Court put an end to all these upon appeal in Phileo Allied Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Bupinder Singh Avatar Singh & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 513 which reinstated the law in Nouvau Mont Dor and also held that the RHC could not extend into an area of substantive law and in the absence of any statutory provisions or common law requiring the equitable mortgagee to obtain a court order to realise its security under an absolute assignment of rights to land, the court should recognise the contractual rights of the parties. Hence, the assignee bank is once again entitled to foreclose the property by way of public auction without a court order. ( Ngoi Thiam Woh v Maxwell, Kenion, Cowdy & Jones (sued as a firm) & Anor [2002] 3 MLJ 341.) However, this still does not solve the problem of the poor assignor purchaser who is still incompetent to sue the developer. But his position has improved substantially if he is a homebuyer when Parliament passed the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Amendment Act 2002.The 2002 amending Act seeks to insert a new section 22C in the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 which has the effect of overriding s 4(3) CLA and the decision of Nouvau Mont Dor if it involves a homebuyer who is a purchaser of a housing accommodation or has a dealing with a licensed housing developer under the 1966 Act. This new section will allow the assignor homebuyer to sue the developer directly unless a contrary intention is expressed in any assignment between the homebuyer and his financier in which case the prior written consent of his financier must first be obtained. This section operates “notwithstanding anything contained in any written law or any rule of law” and applies retrospectively to every assignment. Conclusion In conclusion, it cannot be gainsaid that a statutory assignment under our s 4(3) CLA is a common security for a loan if there is no individual title to the property, but not an assignment by way of charge. Therefore, there is a need for the legislature to look at the predicament of an assignor purchaser as particularised above just as what it did for the assignee under s4(3) CLA and a homebuyer under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966.

• A Organization of the Year Award 2012 (24 Oct 2012)
• Acceptance Speech by Lim Chee Wee, President, Malaysian Bar, at the United Nations Malaysia Organization of the Year Award 2012 Presentation Ceremony, Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur (24 Oct 2012)
• United Nations celebrates 67th anniversary (News Release: The Malaysian Bar presented UN Malaysia Award for its pivotal role in Malaysias democratic development)

What are the international justice norms? written by Tan Peek Guat, Sunday, July 20 2014 12:10 am

101 on Assignment and Novation Agreements

By aqila zulaiqha zulkifli ~ 6 january 2024.

Share this article:

Aqila Zulaiqha Zulkifli

Email Me  |  View Profile

As a general rule, parties to an agreement must perform their respective obligations set out therein. However, where such performance becomes unfeasible or impossible to perform, parties may consider novating or altering the agreement. The present article, shall focus on novation of the said agreement.

A novation of an agreement is summarized as when an agreement is made between two contracting parties to allow for the substitution of a new party for an existing one.

There could be two (2) classes of novation [1] , that is:

• where a new contract is substituted for an old one between the same parties; and
• where a new contract is substituted for an old one between different parties.

Novation is provided for in Section 63 Contracts Act 1950 as follows:

“Section 63 Effect of novation, rescission and alteration of contract

If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed.

Several examples are reproduced below:

• A owes money to B under a contract. It is agreed between A, B and C that B shall henceforth accept C as his debtor, instead of A. The old debt of A to B is at an end, and a new debt from C to B has been contracted.
• A owes B RM10,000. A enters into an arrangement with B, and gives B a mortgage of his (A's) estate for RM5,000 in place of the debt of RM10,000. This is a new contract and extinguishes the old.

Novation requires the consent of all parties as a new contract is substituted for an existing contract and a former party is discharged. Whether there was is no written consent, to novation may, however, be inferred from conduct and not only by way of express words [2] .

Unlike assignments (See our article on Assignment of Debt in this link ), a novation is not to assign or transfer a right or liability. Rather, it is to extinguish the original contract and replace it with another [3] .

The effect of it is that the original contract between parties need not be performed. It is a practical way to rescue a transaction amicably between parties and to avoid a situation where a party to the agreement is stranded without recourse or is forced to resort to litigation to recoup it’s losses.

[1] See the High Court case of Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd. V. Datuk Mohd. Salleh & Anor. [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 786. [2] See the High Court case of Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd. V. Datuk Mohd. Salleh & Anor. [1988] 1 CLJ Rep 786 . [3] See the High Court case of H & R Johnson Tiles & Anor v H & R Johnson (M) Bhd [1998] 4 MLJ 13

RESOURCES /

• Recent Reported Cases
• Talks by Thomas Philip
• TP Legal Clinic

Statutory Assignment vs Equitable Assignment

Contributor.

This article attempts to provide a brief overview of the differences between statutory assignment and equitable assignment. The actual application of the general rules described here would be subject to the applicable distinct facts and circumstances.

What is Assignment?

An assignment is a transfer of rights or liabilities such as those that arise under an instrument, chose in action 1 , or debt. An assignment can either be a statutory assignment or an equitable assignment.

In Malaysia, an assignment complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was described as a 'statutory assignment' and an assignment not complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was a 'non-statutory assignment' i.e., an equitable assignment. 2 The conditions of a statutory assignment are as follows: 3

it must be absolute and did not purport to be by way of charge only;

the assignment was in writing under the hand of the assignor; and

express notice in writing thereof had been given to the debtor or trustee.

Meanwhile, an equitable assignment gives the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The mode or form of assignment is absolutely immaterial provided the intention of the parties is clear. 4

Rules that Govern Assignments

Written notice is an essential part of a statutory assignment. Therefore, it is ineffective unless strictly accurate – accurate, for instance, as regards the date of the assignment and the amount due from the debtor. 5

However, notice is not necessary to perfect an equitable assignment. Even without notice to the debtor the title to the assignee is complete, not only against the assignor personally, but also against the persons who stand in the same position as the assignor, as, for instance, his trustee in bankruptcy, a judgement creditor or a person claiming under a later assignment made without consideration. 6

In regard to the form of notice, as mentioned earlier, a statutory assignment must comply with the form of notice required under Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whilst for an equitable assignment, no particular form is required to constitute a valid equitable assignment.

Additionally, it must be noted that although notice is not required for equitable assignments, an assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to get priority over other assignee(s). In this regard, the Federal Court in Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In Receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 MLJ 369 explained in detail about the importance of notice:

" We need to say a few words more about the great desirability of giving notice of assignment of a debt by an assignee to the debtor, even though absence of such notice does not affect the validity of the equitable assignment as between the assignor and the assignee. If notice is not given, the assignee must give credit for any payment made to the assignor by the debtor. This rule means that, by extension, even if the assignor assigns once more the debt to another person in fraud or otherwise on the earlier assignee, and that other person gives notice to the debtor; and if the debtor pays that other person or the second assignee, then the earlier assignee must still give credit to the debtor for his payment thus, for the debtor cannot be blamed for doing lawfully in ignorance of the title of the earlier assignee who has failed to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. Notice to debtor is for the protection of the assignee himself. It is this effect of what the debtor does lawfully as described that dims the view of the true role of the nemo dat rule in the resolution of disputed claims to a same debt. The money paid to the 'second assignee' can, of course, be recovered by the earlier assignee on the nemo dat principle. "

An assignee takes subject to equities

For both statutory assignment and equitable assignment, the assignee takes 'subject to equities', that is, subject to all such defences as might have prevailed against the assignor.

The general rule, both at law and in equity, is that no person can acquire title to a chose in action...from one who has himself no title to it. 7 In other words, the assignee can be in a no better position than the assignor was prior to the assignment. 8

Rights incapable of assignment

Some choses in action are not assignable, and not every right which arises under or out of a contract can be assigned. 9 An example of rights incapable of assignment is where the nature of the contract is intended to be personal, therefore, it will be meaningless if it is assigned to another person.

Effect of Assignment

A statutory assignment has the sole intended effect of facilitating an assignee to sue in his own name directly irrespective of whether the chose in action is an equitable chose in action or a legal chose in action. 10

Meanwhile, the effect of an equitable assignment depends on whether the assignment is absolute or not. An absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action entitles the assignee to bring an action in his own name. 11 But a non-absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action does not entitle the assignee to sue in his own name but requires him to join the assignor as a party. 12

1. 'Chose in action' is a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession (Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Woo Sai Wa [1997] 5 MLJ 441 (High Court)).

2. MBF Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (T/A New General Trading) [2002] 5 MLJ 536 (High Court).

4. Williams Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454 (House of Lords).

5. Leong, A. P. B. (1998). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract (2nd ed.). Butterworths Asia, at page 861.

7. Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson's law of contract, at page 400.

8. Meagher, R. P., Heydon, J. D., & Leeming, M. J. (2022). Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th ed., p. 284). Butterworths LexisNexis.

9. Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson's law of contract, at page 402.

10. Lim Chon Jet @ Lim Chon Jat & Ors v Wee Ai Hua & Anor [2022] 6 MLJ 243 (Court of Appeal).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.