KOPERASI PEMBIAYAAN SYARIAH ANGKASA BERHAD ANTASHA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM

KOPERASI PEMBIAYAAN SYARIAH ANGKASA BERHAD ANTASHA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM

The instrument failed to comply with s.6 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 because no valuable consideration was stated or proved and the plaintiff was not a purchaser entitled to protection under s.6; therefore the instrument was not irrevocable for an indefinite period and the plaintiff's enforcement application must be dismissed while the defendant's challenge succeeds.

Citation
WA-24NCvC-3993-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIF: KOPERASI PEMBIAYAAN SYARIAH ANGKASA BERHAD; DEFENDAN: ANTASHA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Case Number
WA-24NCvC-3993-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed; Defendant's application in OS No.1982 allowed; costs awarded to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney, Irrevocable Power, Powers of Attorney Act 1949, Private Caveat, National Land Code 1965, Privity of Contract, Enforceability
Source Language
Malay/English
Property Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Land Law Power of Attorney Irrevocable Power Powers of Attorney Act 1949 +4 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KOPERASI PEMBIAYAAN SYARIAH ANGKASA BERHAD

PLAINTIF

ANTASHA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM

DEFENDAN

Procedural Posture

Civil Originating Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the instrument dated 05/01/2021 created an enforceable irrevocable power of attorney for an indefinite period under s.6 Powers of Attorney Act 1949
  2. 2 Whether a private caveat entered by a non-party may be removed ex parte without naming the caveator
  3. 3 Whether valuable consideration was given to support an irrevocable power under s.6

Ratio Decidendi

The instrument failed to comply with s.6 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949 because no valuable consideration was stated or proved and the plaintiff was not a purchaser entitled to protection under s.6; therefore the instrument was not irrevocable for an indefinite period and the plaintiff's enforcement application must be dismissed while the defendant's challenge succeeds.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed; Defendant's application in OS No.1982 allowed; costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • Prayer (1) and (2) of the Plaintiff's originating summons dismissed with costs
  • Defendant's application in OS No.1982 allowed