1. ) TANG SER CHIEW 2. ) LIM YAR TING LEE MEI KIM

1. ) TANG SER CHIEW 2. ) LIM YAR TING LEE MEI KIM

On the evidence as a whole the two SPAs were sham agreements masking an unlicensed moneylending transaction: the presumption under s10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 applied and the respondent failed to rebut it; agreements thus fell foul of s15 MA1951 and were unenforceable. The High Court erred in failing to address the moneylending issue; accordingly Appeal 792 and Appeal 802 were allowed, the High Court decision and injunction/order against the 5th defendant were set aside, with costs awarded.

Citation
N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
1st Appellant / 1st Defendant: TANG SER CHIEW; 2nd Appellant / 2nd Defendant: LIM YAR TING; Appellant / 5th Defendant: PANG VENG YAEN; Respondent / Plaintiff: LEE MEI KIM
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2025
Case Number
N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals N 02(ncv C)(w) 792 05/2024 and N 02(ncv C)(w) 802 05/2024
Outcome
Appeal 792 allowed; decision of learned Judicial Commissioner dated 1.8.2024 set aside. Appeal 802 allowed; injunction/order against 5th defendant set aside.
Legal Topics
Sham Transactions, Illegality and Unenforceability, Moneylending Licence, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Injunction, Caveat
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Moneylenders Act 1951 Sham Transactions Illegality and Unenforceability Moneylending Licence +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TANG SER CHIEW

1st Appellant / 1st Defendant

LIM YAR TING

2nd Appellant / 2nd Defendant

PANG VENG YAEN

Appellant / 5th Defendant

LEE MEI KIM

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals N 02(ncv C)(w) 792 05/2024 and N 02(ncv C)(w) 802 05/2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two SPAs were sham agreements masking unlicensed moneylending transactions under the Moneylenders Act 1951
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under section 10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 applied and was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether agreements are unenforceable under section 15 of the Moneylenders Act 1951

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence as a whole the two SPAs were sham agreements masking an unlicensed moneylending transaction: the presumption under s10OA of the Moneylenders Act 1951 applied and the respondent failed to rebut it; agreements thus fell foul of s15 MA1951 and were unenforceable. The High Court erred in failing to address the moneylending issue; accordingly Appeal 792 and Appeal 802 were allowed, the High Court decision and injunction/order against the 5th defendant were set aside, with costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal 792 allowed; decision of learned Judicial Commissioner dated 1.8.2024 set aside. Appeal 802 allowed; injunction/order against 5th defendant set aside.

Orders

  • Decision of learned Judicial Commissioner dated 1.8.2024 set aside (Appeal 792 allowed)
  • Costs in Appeal 792 to appellants RM50000.00 subject to allocator