{"title":"见Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye诉大华银行(马来西亚)有限公司及其他上诉:原东主与后继押记人的强迫婚姻","authors":"Qing Ying Lim, E. Tay","doi":"10.33093/ajlp.2023.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deferred indefeasibility is one of the most important concepts in the Malaysian Torrens System. Under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, when there exist vitiating factors in the immediate transaction, the immediate purchaser will acquire a voidable title in contrast with the subsequent purchaser who will acquire good title or interest if he obtains the title or interest in good faith and with valuable consideration. However, whether a purchaser is immediate or subsequent depends on the construction of section 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). In 2021, the Federal Court laid down the decision of See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad & Other Appeals which states that the financial institution which acquired interest from an immediate purchaser was a subsequent purchaser, thereby enjoyed indefeasibility in its charge. However, such an interpretation ran afoul of section 340 of the National Land Code. This article provides a commentary on the case of See Leong Chye in respect of the concept of immediate and subsequent purchasers under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility.","PeriodicalId":42954,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Wto & International Health Law and Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad & Other Appeals: A Forced Marriage of Original Proprietor and Subsequent Chargee\",\"authors\":\"Qing Ying Lim, E. Tay\",\"doi\":\"10.33093/ajlp.2023.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Deferred indefeasibility is one of the most important concepts in the Malaysian Torrens System. Under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, when there exist vitiating factors in the immediate transaction, the immediate purchaser will acquire a voidable title in contrast with the subsequent purchaser who will acquire good title or interest if he obtains the title or interest in good faith and with valuable consideration. However, whether a purchaser is immediate or subsequent depends on the construction of section 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). In 2021, the Federal Court laid down the decision of See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad & Other Appeals which states that the financial institution which acquired interest from an immediate purchaser was a subsequent purchaser, thereby enjoyed indefeasibility in its charge. However, such an interpretation ran afoul of section 340 of the National Land Code. This article provides a commentary on the case of See Leong Chye in respect of the concept of immediate and subsequent purchasers under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Wto & International Health Law and Policy\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Wto & International Health Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33093/ajlp.2023.5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Wto & International Health Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33093/ajlp.2023.5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
延期不可行性是马来西亚托伦斯体系的重要概念之一。根据递延不可行性原则,当即时交易中存在损害因素时,即时买受人将获得可撤销的所有权,而后继买受人则以善意和有价对价获得良好的所有权或权益。但是,购买者是立即购买还是后续购买取决于《国家土地法》(2020年修订)第340条的规定。2021年,联邦法院宣布了See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad及其他上诉的决定,该决定指出,从立即购买者处获得利益的金融机构是后续购买者,因此在其指控中享有不可行性。但是,这种解释违反了《国家土地法》第340条。本文就递延不可行性原则下的立即购买人与其后购买人的概念,对See Leong Chye案进行评析。
See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad & Other Appeals: A Forced Marriage of Original Proprietor and Subsequent Chargee
Deferred indefeasibility is one of the most important concepts in the Malaysian Torrens System. Under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility, when there exist vitiating factors in the immediate transaction, the immediate purchaser will acquire a voidable title in contrast with the subsequent purchaser who will acquire good title or interest if he obtains the title or interest in good faith and with valuable consideration. However, whether a purchaser is immediate or subsequent depends on the construction of section 340 of the National Land Code (Revised 2020). In 2021, the Federal Court laid down the decision of See Leong Chye @ Sze Leong Chye v United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad & Other Appeals which states that the financial institution which acquired interest from an immediate purchaser was a subsequent purchaser, thereby enjoyed indefeasibility in its charge. However, such an interpretation ran afoul of section 340 of the National Land Code. This article provides a commentary on the case of See Leong Chye in respect of the concept of immediate and subsequent purchasers under the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility.
期刊介绍:
After Taiwan became the 144th Member of the WTO on January 1 2002 and recognizing the importance of WTO research, the WTO Research Center was established at the NTU College of Law in January, 2003 in order to conduct the research on WTO matters more efficiently. The WTO Research Center was transformed into the Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy (hereinafter ACWH or the Center) in December, 2005 to reflect the broad research scope of the Center. The original focus of the center was only on international trade law. Now it covers three major fields of research and training interests, namely international economic law (mainly WTO and investment), international health law (including the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the International Health Regulations), and international arbitration (including commercial and investor-State arbitrations). ACWH is designed to closely monitor the development of WTO rules, conduct in-depth research on the effect of the WTO rules on Taiwan’s economy, and put forth policy proposals.