TAN SIEW NEE 1. ) Chiang Dyi Woei 2. ) Chew Yee Hui 3. ) Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co

TAN SIEW NEE 1. ) Chiang Dyi Woei 2. ) Chew Yee Hui 3. ) Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's detailed factual findings (crediting expert handwriting evidence, finding no coercion/undue influence/duress, and adverse inferences for failure to call key witnesses) and applied the Pang Mun Chung/Patel proportionality test to conclude that although the underlying transactions were illegal, the Borrower/Vendor was complicit and therefore not entitled to monetary relief; the Law Firm was not culpable. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Citation
J-02(NCvC)(W)-2416-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Borrower/vendor; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 2416 12/2019: Tan Siew Nee; Lender/purchaser; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 117 01/2020: Chiang Dyi Woei; Miss Chew; Plaintiff in Original Action; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 118 01/2020: Chew Yee Hui; Law Firm; Third Respondent: Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co.
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Case Number
J-02(NCvC)(W)-2416-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) From High Court Trial Judgment / Judgment on Appeal; Grounds of Judgment and Final Decision (court of Appeal)
Outcome
All three appeals dismissed; High Court order dated 18 December 2019 affirmed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Illegality Doctrine and Relief, Undue Influence, Duress, Forgery and Expert Handwriting Evidence, Estoppel by Pleadings, Adverse Inference for Failure to Call Witnesses, Proportionality in Refusing Relief, Costs and Equitable Remedies
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Property Law Financial Regulation/moneylending Law Professional Negligence/solicitors' Liability Illegality Doctrine and Relief Undue Influence +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Siew Nee

Borrower/vendor; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 2416 12/2019

Chiang Dyi Woei

Lender/purchaser; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 117 01/2020

Chew Yee Hui

Miss Chew; Plaintiff in Original Action; Appellant in Appeal No. J 02(ncvc)(w) 118 01/2020

Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co.

Law Firm; Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) From High Court Trial Judgment / Judgment on Appeal; Grounds of Judgment and Final Decision (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's findings of fact (forgery, coercion, duress, undue influence, complicity in illegal money‑lending) should be disturbed on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Law Firm was liable for conspiracy or fraud in preparing documentation
  3. 3 Whether the appellants (in particular Tan Siew Nee) were entitled to monetary relief despite transactions being illegal (application of illegality doctrine and Patel/Pang Mun Chung principles)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's detailed factual findings (crediting expert handwriting evidence, finding no coercion/undue influence/duress, and adverse inferences for failure to call key witnesses) and applied the Pang Mun Chung/Patel proportionality test to conclude that although the underlying transactions were illegal, the Borrower/Vendor was complicit and therefore not entitled to monetary relief; the Law Firm was not culpable. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

All three appeals dismissed; High Court order dated 18 December 2019 affirmed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • All three appeals dismissed
  • High Court order dated 18 December 2019 affirmed