Lee Chee Liang Standard Chartered Bank Mystique Bay Sdn Bhd

Lee Chee Liang Standard Chartered Bank Mystique Bay Sdn Bhd

On undisputed documents and pleadings the court found no sale of the property to D2 and title remained with the deceased Abu; plaintiff lacked a possessory interest required for conversion, failed to perform contractual obligations to procure discharge of charge, and the tort claim was time-barred and abused court process; accordingly the claim was dismissed under Order 14A ROC.

Citation
AB22NCVC - 6 - 02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lee Chee Liang; First Defendant: Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd.; Second Defendant: Mystique Bay Sdn Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Case Number
AB22NCVC - 6 - 02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Declaration and Damages (tort of Conversion) Arising From Loan/conveyancing Transaction / Judgment on Order 14 a Application (summary Determination)
Outcome
Claim dismissed in favour of defendants; Order 14A application allowed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Assignment of Loan, Sale of Non Performing Loan (npl), Vesting Order, Discharge of Charge, Order 14 a ROC Summary Determination, Limitation, Laches
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Property Contract Tort Civil Procedure Conveyancing Conversion Assignment of Loan +6 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Chee Liang

Plaintiff

Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Bhd.

First Defendant

Mystique Bay Sdn Bhd.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Declaration and Damages (tort of Conversion) Arising From Loan/conveyancing Transaction / Judgment on Order 14 a Application (summary Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank sold the property to the purchaser or only assigned the loan/NPL
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff had requisite possessory interest to sustain tort of conversion
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff complied with obligation to forward discharge of charge (Form 16N)

Ratio Decidendi

On undisputed documents and pleadings the court found no sale of the property to D2 and title remained with the deceased Abu; plaintiff lacked a possessory interest required for conversion, failed to perform contractual obligations to procure discharge of charge, and the tort claim was time-barred and abused court process; accordingly the claim was dismissed under Order 14A ROC.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in favour of defendants; Order 14A application allowed

Orders

  • Order 14A application allowed
  • Claim dismissed pursuant to Order 14A rule 1(2) ROC