​Malaysian Banking Law – Checklist on the Definition of a Bank


Checklist: Is the Institution a “Bank”?
This checklist is based on:

• Malaysian statutes,
• UK common law principles,
• Malaysian and foreign banking cases,
• Traditional banking law authorities.

The checklist helps determine whether a person, corporation, or institution is legally regarded as carrying on banking business.


Part A – Core Characteristics of Banking
1. Does the institution accept deposits?
✔ Accepting money on:

• Current accounts,
• Savings accounts,
• Deposit accounts,
• Similar accounts.

This is one of the most essential banking characteristics.
Authority

• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood
• Paget’s Law of Banking
• Financial Services Act 2013

2. Does the institution pay cheques drawn by customers?
✔ The institution honours cheques issued by customers.
Authority

• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood
• Paget’s Law of Banking
• Halsbury’s Laws of England

3. Does the institution collect cheques for customers?
✔ The institution collects and processes cheques deposited by customers.
Authority

• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood
• Paget’s Law of Banking

4. Does the institution maintain current accounts?
✔ Customers maintain current accounts with credits and debits recorded.
Authority

• Lord Denning in United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood

Part B – Financing Activities
5. Does the institution provide financing or loans?
✔ Examples:

• Loans,
• Credit facilities,
• Trade financing,
• Murabaha financing,
• Hire purchase,
• Revolving credit.

⚠ Important:
Providing financing alone does NOT automatically amount to banking business.
Authority

• Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
• Vernes Asia Ltd v Trendale Investment Pte Ltd & Anor
• Sabah Development Bank Bhd v Skbs (Sabah) Sdn Bhd & Ors

6. Is the financing activity combined with deposit-taking?
✔ Financing + deposit-taking together strongly suggest banking business.
✘ Financing without deposit-taking usually does NOT amount to banking business.
Authority

• Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
• PP Consultants Pty Ltd v Finance Sector Union

Part C – Regulatory and Statutory Factors
7. Is the institution licensed under Malaysian law?
✔ Does it hold a licence under section 10 of the:

• Financial Services Act 2013?

If YES:

• It may carry on licensed business such as banking business.

8. Is the institution carrying on “licensed business”?
✔ Licensed business includes:

• Banking business,
• Insurance business,
• Investment banking business.

Authority

• Financial Services Act 2013

9. Is the institution carrying on “approved business”?
✔ Approved business includes:

• Payment systems,
• Designated payment instruments,
• Financial advisory business,
• Insurance broking,
• Money-broking.

⚠ Approved business does NOT automatically make the institution a bank.
Authority

• Financial Services Act 2013

10. Is the institution an “authorised person”?
✔ An authorised person means:

• A licensed person; or
• An approved person.

Authority

• Financial Services Act 2013

Part D – Nature of Business Activities
11. Is the institution carrying on business continuously?
✔ Continuous and systematic banking activities suggest banking business.
✘ A single isolated transaction usually does NOT amount to carrying on banking business.
Authority

• Banque Nationale De Paris v Wuan Swee May & Anor

12. Does the institution have a physical business presence?
✔ Branches,
✔ Offices,
✔ Banking operations,
✔ Customer service infrastructure.
These factors support a finding of banking business.
Authority

• Banque Nationale De Paris v Wuan Swee May & Anor

13. Is the institution merely enforcing security or recovering debts?
✘ Recovering debts alone is NOT banking business.
✘ Enforcing security alone is NOT banking business.
Authority

• Bank of China v Lee Kee Pin
• Koh Kim Chai v Asia Commercial Banking Corporation Limited

Part E – Development Finance Institutions
14. Is the institution a development finance institution?
✔ Development finance institutions may:

• Provide loans,
• Offer trade financing,
• Support economic development.

⚠ This alone does NOT automatically make them banks.
Authority

• Sabah Development Bank Bhd v Skbs (Sabah) Sdn Bhd & Ors
• Bank Industri (M) Bhd v Technopro Corp (M) Bhd & Ors

15. Does the institution conduct “development finance business”?
✔ Development finance business includes:

• Industrial financing,
• Agricultural financing,
• Economic development financing.

⚠ Such activities are recognised scheduled businesses under Malaysian law.
Authority

• Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989
• Bank Industri (M) Bhd v Technopro Corp (M) Bhd & Ors

Part F – Reputation and Commercial Understanding
16. Is the institution recognised commercially as a bank?
✔ Courts may consider:

• Reputation,
• Commercial recognition,
• Stability,
• Soundness.

Authority

• Lord Denning
• United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood

Part G – Final Legal Test
Final Question
Does the institution perform ALL essential banking functions together?
✔ Accept deposits
✔ Maintain current accounts
✔ Pay cheques
✔ Collect cheques
✔ Conduct systematic banking operations
If YES:
→ The institution is likely carrying on banking business.
If NO:
→ The institution may merely be:

• A financier,
• Development finance institution,
• Payment provider,
• Financial intermediary,
• Approved business operator.

Key Principles Summarised
Principle 1
Financing alone does NOT equal banking business.
Cases

• Light Style Sdn Bhd v KFH Ijarah House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
• Vernes Asia Ltd v Trendale Investment Pte Ltd & Anor

Principle 2
Recovering debts alone does NOT equal banking business.
Case

• Bank of China v Lee Kee Pin

Principle 3
Taking security alone does NOT equal banking business.
Case

• Koh Kim Chai v Asia Commercial Banking Corporation Limited

Principle 4
A single isolated banking transaction does NOT necessarily amount to carrying on banking business.
Case

• Banque Nationale De Paris v Wuan Swee May & Anor

Principle 5
Development finance institutions are NOT automatically banks.
Cases

• Sabah Development Bank Bhd v Skbs (Sabah) Sdn Bhd & Ors
• Bank Industri (M) Bhd v Technopro Corp (M) Bhd & Ors

Conclusion
The legal definition of a bank depends on:

• Statutory requirements,
• Essential banking characteristics,
• Continuous banking operations,
• Deposit-taking activities,
• Cheque-processing functions,
• Regulatory status,
• Commercial recognition.

Modern Malaysian banking law adopts both:

• Traditional common law banking principles,
  and
• Statutory licensing and regulatory frameworks under the Financial Services Act 2013.

Malaysian Contract Law – What amendments have been made to the Contracts Act, and why are they important?


Q:
Have there been major amendments to the
Contracts Act 1950
, and how have they affected Malaysian contract law?
A: Although the Contracts Act 1950 has existed for more than 120 years (originating from the Contract Enactment 1899), there have been very few substantive amendments to its core provisions.
This means that Malaysian contract law is still largely based on:

• The Indian Contract Act 1872
• Which itself reflected English common law principles of 1872

👉 As a result, many principles in Malaysian contract law remain historically rooted in 19th-century common law.


Chronological Amendments to the Contracts Act
1. Contracts (Malay States) (Amendment) Act 1967
👉 Concerned mainly with the application of the law within the Malay States.
Practical Effect:
Helped clarify how the Contracts legislation applied within different states.


2. Contracts (Malay States) (Amendment and Extension) Act 1974
👉 Extended the Contracts Act to additional states in Malaysia.
Practical Effect:

• Helped achieve uniform contract law nationwide
• Particularly important for:
  • Penang
  • Malacca
  • Sabah
  • Sarawak

👉 Before this, some states still relied heavily on English common law.


3. Partnership (Amendment) Act 1974
👉 Removed partnership provisions from the Contracts Act.
Effect:
Partnership law became governed separately by the:

• Partnership Act 1961

Practical Application:

• Business partnerships are now regulated under a specialised statute
• Makes partnership law more focused and organised

4. Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976
👉 Introduced provisions relating to scholarship agreements.
Although described as an amendment to the Contracts Act, it did not substantially alter the existing contract principles.
Practical Application:

• Government and educational institutions can enforce scholarship agreements
• Students who breach scholarship conditions may be required to repay sponsorship amounts

Modern Developments Outside the Contracts Act
5. Consumer Protection Act Amendments (2010)
One of the most important modern developments came through amendments to the:

• Consumer Protection Act 1999

These amendments introduced rules on:
👉 Unfair contract terms in consumer transactions
Practical Application:
Protects consumers against:

• One-sided terms
• Hidden clauses
• Unfair exclusions of liability

Example:
A company cannot insert extremely unfair standard terms into consumer contracts without scrutiny.


6. Electronic Commerce Act 2006

• Electronic Commerce Act 2006

👉 Recognised contracts formed electronically.
Practical Application:

• Online purchases
• Digital agreements
• E-signatures
• E-commerce transactions

Example:
Buying goods through Shopee or Lazada creates a legally enforceable contract.


Key Observation
A very important point is that:
👉 Major modern contractual developments were introduced outside the Contracts Act itself
Instead of updating the Contracts Act directly, Parliament introduced:

• Consumer protection legislation
• E-commerce legislation
• Specialised statutes

Real-Life Example
Imagine three situations:
1. Traditional Contract
You sign a business agreement
→ Governed mainly by the Contracts Act 1950


2. Online Purchase
You buy a laptop online
→ Governed by:

• Contracts Act 1950
• Electronic Commerce Act 2006

3. Consumer Dispute
A gym contract contains unfair cancellation terms
→ Consumer Protection Act 1999 applies


Critical Analysis
Weaknesses
Outdated Core Law

• Main contract principles still reflect 1872 English common law ideas
• Limited modernisation within the Contracts Act itself

Fragmented Legal Development
Modern contractual issues are addressed through separate statutes rather than comprehensive reform of the Contracts Act.
Complexity
Lawyers and courts must refer to multiple statutes:

• Contracts Act
• Consumer Protection Act
• Electronic Commerce Act
• Partnership Act

Strengths
Stability
The Contracts Act provides a long-standing and predictable legal framework.
Flexibility
Modern legislation supplements old principles without replacing them entirely.
Consumer Protection
Recent reforms better protect consumers and online transactions.


Conclusion
Although the Contracts Act 1950 has undergone only limited substantive amendment since its origins in 1899, Malaysian contract law has evolved through separate legislation such as the Consumer Protection Act 1999 and the Electronic Commerce Act 2006.
👉 This creates a system where traditional contract principles remain intact, while modern issues are addressed through specialised statutes.

​

Malaysian Contract Law – Comprehensive Chronological Development of the Contracts Act 1950


Q: How did the Contracts Act 1950 develop in Malaysia from the pre-colonial period until the modern era?
A:
The development of the Contracts Act 1950 is one of the most important historical developments in Malaysian private law. Malaysian contract law did not emerge suddenly through a single statute. Instead, it evolved gradually over centuries through:

• Malay customary law (adat)
• Islamic law
• English common law
• Indian codification
• Colonial legislation
• Judicial interpretation
• Modern statutory reforms

The current Contracts Act 1950 therefore represents a mixture of:

• local legal traditions,
• colonial legal influence,
• Indian statutory drafting,
• and modern Malaysian legal adaptation.

The development was also not uniform throughout Malaysia. Different regions adopted different legal systems at different times due to their different political and colonial histories.


PART I – PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD (Before 1786)
1. Absence of Formal Contract Law
Before British intervention, there was no formal or codified law of contract in the Malay Peninsula.
The legal system consisted mainly of:

• Malay customary law (adat)
• Islamic law
• Local community practices

Malay legal codes existed, but they mainly dealt with:

• constitutional matters,
• criminal law,
• royal administration,
  rather than commercial contract law.

There was:

• no organised court structure,
• no doctrine of precedent,
• no formal recording of judgments.

Disputes were usually resolved by:

• Sultans,
• village chiefs,
• penghulus,
• local leaders.

Each dispute was decided according to:

• fairness,
• local custom,
• religious principles,
• community expectations.

Practical Application
If two traders disputed over:

• sale of goods,
• unpaid debts,
• exchange agreements,
  the dispute would likely be resolved according to:
• adat,
• Islamic principles,
• or local notions of justice.

There was no uniform written contract law applicable throughout the Malay states.


Critical Analysis
Strengths

• Flexible system
• Sensitive to local customs
• Reflected local social realities

Weaknesses

• Lack of certainty
• Inconsistent outcomes
• No predictable commercial rules
• Unsuitable for large-scale international trade

PART II – BRITISH INTERVENTION AND INTRODUCTION OF ENGLISH LAW
The British introduced a structured legal system primarily to:

• facilitate trade,
• protect commercial interests,
• establish administrative control.

The British believed that:
economic and political expansion required an orderly legal framework.
Because British intervention occurred at different times in different states, Malaysian contract law developed unevenly.


PART III – STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (PENANG, MALACCA, SINGAPORE)


2. Penang (1786 onwards)
1786 – Penang ceded to British
Penang was ceded by the Sultan of Kedah to the British.
Initially, uncertainty arose:

• Was Penang a “settlement”?
  OR
• Was it a “ceded territory”?

This distinction mattered because:

• If a settlement → English law automatically applied
• If ceded territory → existing local law continued

3. First Charter of Justice 1807
The uncertainty became less important after the:

• First Charter of Justice 1807

This Charter:

• formally introduced English law into Penang,
• established courts,
• introduced English judicial procedures.

The Charter stated that English law applied:
“as far as circumstances will admit.”
This meant English law was not intended to completely destroy local customs immediately.
The courts could still consider:

• local religions,
• customs,
• manners.

Practical Application
Commercial disputes in Penang:

• were increasingly decided according to English contract principles.

For example:

• breach of agreements,
• damages,
• promises,
• commercial obligations
  were interpreted through English law.

4. Singapore and Malacca
1819 – Singapore acquired
After Singapore came under British control, uncertainty again arose concerning applicable law.


1826 – Second Charter of Justice
The:

• Second Charter of Justice 1826
  extended English law to:
• Singapore,
• Malacca.

English law as at:

• 26 March 1826
  became applicable.

For Penang:

• the Charter was largely unnecessary,
  because English law had already entered through the First Charter.

5. Third Charter of Justice 1855
The:

• Third Charter of Justice 1855
  mainly reorganised courts.

It also created academic questions:

• Did later English statutes apply?
• Which date of English law applied?

However, these questions had limited practical importance because contract law at the time was mainly common law rather than statutory.


6. Ong Cheng Neo v Yeap Cheah Neo (1872)
Ong Cheng Neo v Yeap Cheah Neo
The Privy Council confirmed:

• English law had applied in Penang since 1786.

This case became an important authority on reception of English law.


7. Civil Law Ordinance 1878
Civil Law Ordinance 1878
Section 6 introduced:

• English commercial law
  into the Straits Settlements.

This formally clarified that:

• English contract law applied in Penang, Malacca and Singapore.

8. Civil Law Ordinance 1909
Re-enacted the earlier ordinance.
Continued English commercial law reception.


9. Civil Law Act 1956
Civil Law Act 1956
Section 5(2):

• preserved English commercial law application in Penang and Malacca.

10. Extension of Contracts Act 1974
The:

• Contracts Act 1950
  was finally extended to:
• Penang,
• Malacca,
• Sabah,
• Sarawak.

This created nationwide uniformity.


Critical Analysis – Straits Settlements
Strengths

• Introduced legal certainty
• Encouraged international trade
• Developed commercial confidence

Weaknesses

• Heavy colonial influence
• English law often displaced local legal traditions

PART IV – FEDERATED MALAY STATES
(Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang)


11. Early Position Before 1899
The Federated Malay States were:

• British protectorates,
  not colonies.

There was:

• no formal reception statute for English law.

Theoretically:

• Malay customary law applied.

In practice:

• British judges frequently applied English principles.

12. Motor Emporium v Arumugam
Motor Emporium v Arumugam
The court recognised:

• courts possessed inherent jurisdiction to do justice,
• English equitable principles could therefore be applied.

This case shows:

• English law was judicially imported even without legislation.

PART V – INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872


13. Origins of Indian Contract Act
Indian Contract Act 1872
Drafted by:

• Indian Law Commissions.

Main sources:

• English common law
• New York Field Code

Thus:

• Indian Contract Act = codified English common law.

14. Criticism of the Indian Contract Act
Pollock & Mulla
Criticised:

• lack of continuity,
• inconsistent drafting,
• poor codification,
• defective borrowing from Field Code.

Lord Bryce
Criticised:

• lack of precision,
• unclear drafting,
• excessive enthusiasm for codification.

15. Positive Feature – Restitution
Despite criticism, the Act was advanced in recognising:

• restitutionary remedies.

Important provisions:

• Section 65
• Section 66

These deal with:

• restoration of benefits,
• unjust enrichment,
• void agreements,
• rescinded contracts.

Practical Application
If a contract becomes void:

• money or benefits received must be returned.

Example:

• refund after void online transaction.

PART VI – CONTRACT ENACTMENT 1899


16. Introduction into Federated Malay States
The Indian Contract Act was introduced as:

• Contract Enactment 1899.

This became:

• first codified contract law in Federated Malay States.

17. Judicial Preference for English Law
Even after codification:

• judges often continued using English principles.

18. Kandasamy v Suppiah
Kandasamy v Suppiah
Issue:

• meaning of “law to which he is subject”.

Court preferred:

• common law interpretation,
  rather than personal law.

This demonstrated:

• judicial preference for English-style reasoning.

19. Civil Law Enactment 1937
Civil Law Enactment 1937
Formally introduced:

• English common law,
• rules of equity.

BUT:
only where no local written law existed.


PART VII – UNFEDERATED MALAY STATES
(Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu)


20. General Position
No direct introduction of Contract Enactment initially.
English law entered indirectly through:

• court enactments,
• judicial practice,
• extension provisions.

21. Johor – Comprehensive Chronological Development


Before 1911

• Governed mainly by:
  • adat,
  • Islamic law,
  • local practices.

1911–1912 Courts Enactment
Applied:

• English contract law,
• English tort law.

Section 29(1):
courts guided by English law as applied in Straits Settlements.


Practical Impact
English legal principles entered Johor before codified contract law.


1914 Courts Enactment
Extended:

• Federated Malay States Contract Enactment to Johor.

1920 Amendment
Extended:

• Perak Contract Enactment to Johor.

1932 Re-enactment
Confirmed continuation.


1949 Johor (Replacement of Laws) Ordinance
Reintroduced Contract Enactment after repeal.


1950 Contracts Ordinance
Johor aligned with rest of Malay States.


Overall Development of Johor
Johor evolved through:

• customary law,
• English common law,
• Contract Enactment,
• Contracts Ordinance,
• Contracts Act.

22. Kedah
Courts applied:

• principles used in Straits Settlements.

Therefore:

• English contract law indirectly applied.

23. Kelantan
Engku Leh v Che Wok
Engku Leh v Che Wok
Court emphasised:

• need for legal uniformity.

24. 1950 Contracts (Malay States) Ordinance
Unified contract law across Malay States.


PART VIII – SABAH AND SARAWAK


25. Early Position
Both were British protectorates.
Initially:

• no formal reception statutes.

26. Sarawak – 1928
Law of Sarawak Ordinance 1928
Introduced English law.


27. Sabah – 1938
Civil Law Ordinance 1938
Introduced English common law and equity.


28. Application of Laws Ordinances
Sarawak 1949
Sabah 1951
Introduced:

• English common law,
• equity,
• statutes of general application.

29. 1972
Civil Law Act extended.


30. 1974
Contracts Act and Specific Relief Act extended.
Nationwide uniformity largely achieved.


PART IX – FORMATION OF MALAYSIA


1946 – Malayan Union
1948 – Federation of Malaya
1957 – Independence
1963 – Malaysia formed
1965 – Singapore separated


PART X – CONTRACTS ORDINANCE → CONTRACTS ACT


31. Contracts Ordinance 1950
Formally passed by Federal Legislative Council.


32. Revision into Contracts Act 1950
Under:
Revision of Laws Act 1968
The Ordinance became:

• Contracts Act 1950.

Without re-passing through Parliament.


PART XI – MODERN AMENDMENTS


33. Few Substantive Changes
Main principles remain largely unchanged since:

• 1872 English common law.

Important Amendments
1967 Amendment
Application matters.


1974 Amendment
Extension throughout Malaysia.


Partnership (Amendment) Act 1974
Partnership provisions removed.
Now governed by:
Partnership Act 1961


Contracts (Amendment) Act 1976
Scholarship agreements.


PART XII – MODERN DEVELOPMENTS OUTSIDE CONTRACTS ACT


34. Consumer Protection Act 1999
Consumer Protection Act 1999
2010 amendments introduced:

• unfair contract terms protections.

Practical Application
Protects consumers against:

• unfair clauses,
• hidden conditions,
• abusive standard contracts.

35. Electronic Commerce Act 2006
Electronic Commerce Act 2006
Recognised:

• electronic contracts,
• online transactions,
• digital signatures.

Practical Application
Applies to:

• Shopee,
• Lazada,
• online banking,
• e-commerce contracts.

PART XIII – OVERALL PRACTICAL APPLICATION TODAY
Modern Malaysian contract law governs:

• business contracts,
• employment agreements,
• online transactions,
• consumer contracts,
• commercial relationships.

Courts may still refer to:

• English common law,
• Indian authorities,
  where local statutes are unclear.

PART XIV – OVERALL CRITICAL ANALYSIS


Strengths
1. Legal Certainty
Codified rules provide predictability.


2. Flexibility
English common law fills gaps.


3. Historical Depth
Well-developed legal principles.


4. Restitutionary Sophistication
Sections 65 and 66 recognised restitution early.


5. Nationwide Uniformity
Achieved by 1974.


Weaknesses
1. Colonial Dependence
Strong reliance on English and Indian law.


2. Outdated Principles
Core law still reflects 19th-century ideas.


3. Fragmentation
Modern reforms scattered across multiple statutes.


4. Judicial Inconsistency
Courts sometimes ignored statutory wording.


FINAL CONCLUSION
The Contracts Act 1950 is not merely a local statute but the result of a long historical evolution involving:

• Malay customary law,
• Islamic principles,
• English common law,
• Indian codification,
• colonial administration,
• judicial development,
• and modern legislative reform.

Its development can be summarised chronologically as:
Customary Law → English Common Law → Indian Contract Act → Contract Enactment 1899 → Contracts Ordinance 1950 → Contracts Act 1950 → Modern Consumer & Electronic Commerce Reforms
Today, Malaysian contract law remains deeply influenced by its historical roots while continuing to adapt to modern commercial realities.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Peaceful Assembly
Peaceful assembly is the right of individuals to gather together lawfully for meetings, demonstrations, or protests.
The right is protected under principles of freedom of association and human rights law.
Assemblies must generally remain non-violent in order to qualify for protection.
Public authorities may impose restrictions where necessary for public safety, prevention of disorder, or protection of others’ rights.
The right forms an important part of democratic participation and political expression.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Piscary
Piscary, also known as a fishery right, is a type of profit à prendre.
It gives a person the legal right to take fish from water located on another person’s land.
The right may exist by grant, custom, or prescription.
Piscary rights can apply to rivers, lakes, ponds, or other bodies of water.
Such rights are recognized as proprietary interests in land law.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Perjury
Perjury is the criminal offence of knowingly giving false evidence under oath or affirmation.
The offence applies to evidence given in judicial proceedings before courts or tribunals.
A person commits perjury if the statement is false and made knowingly or recklessly.
Perjury may be committed by witnesses, defendants, or interpreters during proceedings.
The offence is punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine because it undermines the administration of justice.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Perverse Verdict
A perverse verdict is a jury verdict that is clearly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to legal directions given by the judge.
Such verdicts are considered irrational or unreasonable in light of the evidence presented.
A verdict may be described as perverse if no reasonable jury could properly have reached it.
Appellate courts may review or overturn perverse verdicts in appropriate circumstances.
The concept helps ensure fairness and consistency within the justice system.

​

KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Pendente Lite
Pendente lite is a Latin expression meaning “pending the litigation” or “until trial”.
The term is commonly used in probate proceedings involving disputes over wills or administration of estates.
During such disputes, the court may appoint an administrator pendente lite to manage the estate temporarily.
The administrator’s role is limited to preserving and managing the estate until the proceedings conclude.
An administrator pendente lite generally cannot distribute estate assets without permission of the court.

​

​KembaraXtra – Legal Terms – Pending Land Action


A pending land action is court proceedings concerning land or an interest in land.


The claimant should register the action promptly to protect the claim against third parties.


For unregistered land, the action is protected as a land charge.


For registered land, protection is obtained through the entry of a notice or restriction on the register.


If the action is not registered, a purchaser without notice of the proceedings may take the land free from the outcome of the litigation.