Chiang Dyi Woei 1. ) Chiang Dyi Woei 2. ) Tan Siew Nee 3. ) Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co

Chiang Dyi Woei 1. ) Chiang Dyi Woei 2. ) Tan Siew Nee 3. ) Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the trial judge's detailed factual findings that the Borrower/Vendor was an experienced investor complicit in illegal money‑lending transactions were not plainly wrong; having regard to public interest, proportionality and the parties' conduct the court declined to grant monetary relief arising from the illegal transactions and affirmed the High Court order granting only vacant possession to Chew and dismissing other claims.

Citation
J-02(NCvC)(W)-118-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (borrower/vendor): Tan Siew Nee; Appellant (lender/purchaser): Chiang Dyi Woei; Appellant/plaintiff: Chew Yee Hui; Third Respondent (law Firm): Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co.
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Case Number
J-02(NCvC)(W)-118-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Grounds of Judgment on Consolidated Appeals (final Disposition)
Outcome
All three appeals dismissed; High Court order dated 18 December 2019 affirmed
Legal Topics
Illegal Moneylending, Undue Influence, Duress, Forgery, Fraud, Estoppel, Expert Opinion Evidence, Relief for Illegal Contracts, Vacant Possession
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Equity Property Law Evidence Law Illegal Moneylending Undue Influence Duress Forgery +5 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Siew Nee

Appellant (borrower/vendor)

Chiang Dyi Woei

Appellant (lender/purchaser)

Chew Yee Hui

Appellant/plaintiff

Tetuan Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co.

Third Respondent (law Firm)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Grounds of Judgment on Consolidated Appeals (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact were plainly wrong
  2. 2 Whether the appellant (Tan) could obtain monetary relief despite illegality of the transactions
  3. 3 Whether signatures were forged and who bore the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the trial judge's detailed factual findings that the Borrower/Vendor was an experienced investor complicit in illegal money‑lending transactions were not plainly wrong; having regard to public interest, proportionality and the parties' conduct the court declined to grant monetary relief arising from the illegal transactions and affirmed the High Court order granting only vacant possession to Chew and dismissing other claims.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Dismiss all three appeals with no order as to costs
  • Affirm the High Court order dated 18 December 2019