ONG YEE MIAN 1. ) OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) RHB Asset Management Sdn Bhd

ONG YEE MIAN 1. ) OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) RHB Asset Management Sdn Bhd

The court found the extension to 15.9.2022 was valid because it was approved by unit‑holder resolution held pursuant to the Deed; notices (SMS/letter) were sent and plaintiff failed to respond or instruct OCBC to vote, amounting to laches/waiver/estoppel; OCBC acted as distributor/agent and did not unilaterally extend the fund and therefore is not liable; RHB is not liable because no breach or wrongdoing was pleaded against it; plaintiff's claim for immediate refund is premature and dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-573-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ong Yee Mian; 1st Defendant: OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad; 2nd Defendant: RHB Asset Management Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCC-573-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil: Investment Fund/unit Trust Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial (plaintiff's Claim Dismissed); Appeal Noted
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unit Trust Fund, Redemption, Extension of Fund Tenure, Agency/distributor Liability, Notice by Electronic Transmission, Estoppel, Laches, Compulsory Redemption
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Trusts and Fiduciary Law Securities Regulation Banking Law Civil Procedure Unit Trust Fund Redemption Extension of Fund Tenure +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ong Yee Mian

Plaintiff

OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad

1st Defendant

RHB Asset Management Sdn Bhd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Investment Fund/unit Trust Dispute / Judgment After Full Trial (plaintiff's Claim Dismissed); Appeal Noted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who extended the tenure of the Investment Fund to 15.9.2022?
  2. 2 Whether the tenure extension to 15.9.2022 was valid
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to refund of RM1,160,451.51

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the extension to 15.9.2022 was valid because it was approved by unit‑holder resolution held pursuant to the Deed; notices (SMS/letter) were sent and plaintiff failed to respond or instruct OCBC to vote, amounting to laches/waiver/estoppel; OCBC acted as distributor/agent and did not unilaterally extend the fund and therefore is not liable; RHB is not liable because no breach or wrongdoing was pleaded against it; plaintiff's claim for immediate refund is premature and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs
  • OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad to be paid RM25000 in costs