HO KEAN PIN 1. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. NG HU WEI & KOK SOO PING

HO KEAN PIN 1. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 2. NG HU WEI & KOK SOO PING

Although the court may in exceptional circumstances interpret 'shall' in section 257(1)(g) NLC 1965 flexibly, absent legislative provision and in view of Parliament's clear intent to protect chargors, the court will not grant an extension without first ensuring chargors are heard and their interests protected; because the plaintiff failed to prove service on chargors and left terms (quantum of interest, consent/indemnity) ambiguous, the court could not properly exercise inherent jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the application.

Citation
PA-24NCVC-250-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ho Kean Pin; First Defendant: Malayan Banking Berhad; Second Defendant: Ng Hu Wei; Second Defendant: Kok Soo Ping
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Case Number
PA-24NCVC-250-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (judicial Sale) / Judgment
Outcome
Enclosure 1 dismissed with no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Auction Sale, Forfeiture of Deposit, Interpretation of Mandatory Statute, Inherent Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Protection of Chargor
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Property Civil Procedure Contract Extension of Time Auction Sale Forfeiture of Deposit Interpretation of Mandatory Statute +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Kean Pin

Plaintiff

Malayan Banking Berhad

First Defendant

Ng Hu Wei

Second Defendant

Kok Soo Ping

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (judicial Sale) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can extend the 120‑day period for payment stipulated in section 257(1)(g) NLC 1965
  2. 2 Whether the Movement Control Order (MCO) renders performance impossible and justifies relief
  3. 3 Whether chargors must be heard and their interests protected before any extension is granted

Ratio Decidendi

Although the court may in exceptional circumstances interpret 'shall' in section 257(1)(g) NLC 1965 flexibly, absent legislative provision and in view of Parliament's clear intent to protect chargors, the court will not grant an extension without first ensuring chargors are heard and their interests protected; because the plaintiff failed to prove service on chargors and left terms (quantum of interest, consent/indemnity) ambiguous, the court could not properly exercise inherent jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 1 dismissed with no order as to costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 dismissed
  • No order as to costs