English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  A statutory   lien is a non-registrable security dealing under the National Land Code (NLC) in Malaysia. Lien is usually used as a short-term collateral for a repayment of debt by the proprietor. Prior to the 2016 amendments, section 281(1) of the NLC stated that a proprietor may create a lien over his land by depositing the original title with the lender, as security for a loan; and the lender shall enter a lien-holder’s caveat under section 330(1) to protect his interests. Case law has expanded the scope of section 281 to include an equitable proprietor under the definition of “proprietor” and a third-party loan with the proprietor’s consent or authority under the definition of “loan”. The 2016 amendments removed “for a loan” in sections 281(1) and 330(1). This triggers the analysis on the purposes of lien.    Methods:  The research methodology adopted is doctrinal legal research. Relevant sections and case law together with the Bill and Parliament’s Hansard record are examined to find the intention of the legislature and Parliament.    Results:  The amendments allow the lien to be used not merely as security for a loan but also for other purposes (Explanation Note 47 to the Bill). Such deletions have created an ambiguous interpretation; and may be manipulated by fraudsters. In contrast, section 241(1) provides specific purposes such as the repayment of debt, non-debt, or payment of annuity or periodic sum, for the creation of statutory charge.    Conclusions:  This research is only confined to the scope of lien within the Peninsular Malaysia and not the States of Sabah and Sarawak which have their respective Sabah Land Ordinance and Sarawak Land Code. A future comparative study could be made amongst the legislations. The research output may be useful for the draftsman to clear up the ambiguity in the relevant provisions.

Statutory lien: pre- and post- 2016 amendments to the Malaysian National Land Code