1. MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN.BHD 2. LIEW HON KONG @ LIEW KWAN VOON BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

1. MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN.BHD 2. LIEW HON KONG @ LIEW KWAN VOON BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

The Federal Court held that the BBA Asset Purchase and Asset Sale Agreements did not amount in form or substance to a ‘transfer, conveyance or disposal’ within section 214A of the National Land Code; given the purpose of s214A to prevent fragmentation and dispossession of estate land and the need to favor...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
02(f)-54-09/2020(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd; Appellant: Liew Hon Kong @ Liew Kwan Voon; Respondent: Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 July 2021
Case Number
02(f)-54-09/2020(A) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Federal Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
Section 214 a National Land Code, Bai Bithaman Ajil (bba), Illegality of Contracts, Estate Land Fragmentation, Charge Indefeasibility, Res Judicata, Restitution Under Contracts Act
Land Law Contract Law Islamic Finance Statutory Interpretation Property Registration Section 214 a National Land Code Bai Bithaman Ajil (bba) Illegality of Contracts +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maple Amalgamated Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Liew Hon Kong @ Liew Kwan Voon

Appellant

Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Federal Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unconditional BBA sale and repurchase agreement breaches section 214A NLC
  2. 2 Whether the BBA agreement is void for illegality under Contracts Act s24
  3. 3 Whether the registered charge is defeasible if the BBA is void

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held that the BBA Asset Purchase and Asset Sale Agreements did not amount in form or substance to a ‘transfer, conveyance or disposal’ within section 214A of the National Land Code; given the purpose of s214A to prevent fragmentation and dispossession of estate land and the need to favor commercially sensible constructions absent clear legislative intent, the BBA transaction is valid and enforceable and the registered charge stands; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court and Court of Appeal decisions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Orders of the High Court and the Court of Appeal affirmed