MOHAMAD SUFFIAN BIN JANTAN AMAT MISPAR READY CASH SDN BHD

MOHAMAD SUFFIAN BIN JANTAN AMAT MISPAR READY CASH SDN BHD

Plaintiff's application dismissed because he failed to prove he is an aggrieved person with a caveatable/registrable interest: his evidence was hearsay, lacked proof of payment and of authority as nominee, and the underlying investor agreements were tainted by unlicensed lending making them void; consequently no serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience did not favour extending the caveat pending trial.

Citation
BA-24NCvC-593-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: Mohamad Suffian bin Jantan Amat Mispar; Defendan: Ready Cash Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 August 2024
Case Number
BA-24NCvC-593-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Perjanjian Jual Beli / Pembatalan Kaveat / First Instance Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to remove the defendant's private caveat dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Caveat Removal, Caveatable Interest, Registrable Interest, Aggrieved Person, Illegality of Unlicensed Lending, Locus Standi, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Contract Law National Land Code Banking and Financial Regulation Private Caveat Removal Caveatable Interest Registrable Interest Aggrieved Person +3 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Suffian bin Jantan Amat Mispar

Plaintif

Ready Cash Sdn. Bhd.

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Perjanjian Jual Beli / Pembatalan Kaveat / First Instance Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is an aggrieved person entitled to apply under s.327 NLC
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has a caveatable interest/registrable interest under s.323 NLC
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff raised a serious question to be tried

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's application dismissed because he failed to prove he is an aggrieved person with a caveatable/registrable interest: his evidence was hearsay, lacked proof of payment and of authority as nominee, and the underlying investor agreements were tainted by unlicensed lending making them void; consequently no serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience did not favour extending the caveat pending trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to remove the defendant's private caveat dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of RM5000 awarded to the defendant, subject to tax/fi alokator