Lee Hock Hin 1. A. Logesvary a/p Arikrishna 2. Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad

Lee Hock Hin 1. A. Logesvary a/p Arikrishna 2. Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad

The SPA was a sham designed to disguise a loan; however the Plaintiff was not proved to be a 'moneylender' within the Moneylenders Act because the 1st Defendant failed to plead and prove the s.10OA presumption and failed to show system, repetition or evidence of interest paid; accordingly specific performance was denied, the admitted loan of RM180,000 was ordered repaid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff within three months after the Plaintiff withdraws the improper private caveat and notifies the 1st Defendant, and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum runs from the expiry of that three-month period until full realisation.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: LEE HOCK HIN; 1st Defendant: A LOGESVARY A/P ARIKRISHNA; 2nd Defendant: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 December 2021
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-102-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims for specific performance and ancillary equitable reliefs dismissed; Plaintiff entitled to repayment of RM180,000 which 1st Defendant must refund under conditions; Plaintiff's claims against bank dismissed; costs and interest orders made.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sham Transaction, Moneylending, Unenforceability of Illegal Contracts, Statutory Presumption S.10 OA, Costs, Post Judgment Interest, Redemption Statement
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Banking Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sham Transaction Moneylending +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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE HOCK HIN

Plaintiff

A LOGESVARY A/P ARIKRISHNA

1st Defendant

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement was a sham to disguise a loan
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was a 'moneylender' under the Moneylenders Act 1951
  3. 3 Applicability and pleading requirements of the s.10OA statutory presumption in civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA was a sham designed to disguise a loan; however the Plaintiff was not proved to be a 'moneylender' within the Moneylenders Act because the 1st Defendant failed to plead and prove the s.10OA presumption and failed to show system, repetition or evidence of interest paid; accordingly specific performance was denied, the admitted loan of RM180,000 was ordered repaid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff within three months after the Plaintiff withdraws the improper private caveat and notifies the 1st Defendant, and post-judgment interest at 5% per annum runs from the expiry of that three-month period until full realisation.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims for specific performance and ancillary equitable reliefs dismissed; Plaintiff entitled to repayment of RM180,000 which 1st Defendant must refund under conditions; Plaintiff's claims against bank dismissed; costs and interest orders made.

Orders

  • 1st Defendant shall repay RM180000 to the Plaintiff within three months after the Plaintiff withdraws his private caveat on the property and notifies the 1st Defendant of such withdrawal.
  • Specific performance, declaratory relief and ancillary reliefs in respect of the Sale and Purchase Agreement are dismissed.