Tan Boon An Lee Peng Too

Tan Boon An Lee Peng Too

The High Court held the contemporaneous evidence (notably WhatsApp communications, multiple tranches, repeated collection of interest at 5% monthly plus upfront deductions, involvement of third parties and failure to produce bank statements) established the plaintiff was carrying on an unlicensed moneylending business; the statutory presumption under s10OA (or alternatively a factual presumption under s114) was not rebutted and the agreements were therefore unenforceable under s15 Moneylenders Act; the magistrate's judgment was set aside and appeal allowed.

Citation
BA-11BNCC-9-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Tan Boon An; Respondent/plaintiff: Lee Peng Too
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 July 2020
Case Number
BA-11BNCC-9-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court of Malaya) / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate's judgment reversed; transaction declared illegal moneylending and unenforceable
Legal Topics
Illegal Moneylending, Friendly Loan, Statutory Presumption S10 OA, Sham Transaction, Adverse Inference S114(g), Unenforceability of Contracts by Unlicensed Moneylenders
Source Language
Malay/English
Moneylenders Act Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Illegal Moneylending Friendly Loan Statutory Presumption S10 OA Sham Transaction +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Boon An

Appellant/defendant

Lee Peng Too

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court of Malaya) / Judgment on Appeal (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transactions were friendly loans or illegal moneylending
  2. 2 Whether s10OA Moneylenders Act presumption applies in the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was carrying on the business of moneylending (system, continuity, repetition)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the contemporaneous evidence (notably WhatsApp communications, multiple tranches, repeated collection of interest at 5% monthly plus upfront deductions, involvement of third parties and failure to produce bank statements) established the plaintiff was carrying on an unlicensed moneylending business; the statutory presumption under s10OA (or alternatively a factual presumption under s114) was not rebutted and the agreements were therefore unenforceable under s15 Moneylenders Act; the magistrate's judgment was set aside and appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate's judgment reversed; transaction declared illegal moneylending and unenforceable

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Magistrate's judgment reversed and plaintiff's claim dismissed as arising from illegal unlicensed moneylending