RHB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 6171-M) GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No.: 769692-A)

RHB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 6171-M) GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No.: 769692-A)

The Bank failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the NOA was served on the Defendant because it did not call the Borrower’s representative or produce direct evidence of service; the presence of forged interim certificates and credible testimony that the Defendant was unaware of the NOA established that the Defendant was not bound by the NOA, therefore the Bank's claim for RM1,306,105.02 failed.

Citation
WA-22NCC-488-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: RHB Bank Berhad; Defendant: Granstep Development Sdn Bhd; Third Party: ML Sepakat Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Case Number
WA-22NCC-488-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Division Recovery Suit (assignment of Contract Proceeds) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contract Proceeds, Notice of Assignment, Service of Notice, Burden of Proof, Adverse Inference Under S114(g) Evidence Act 1950, Forged Documents, Bank Guarantee, Set Off
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Banking Law Evidence Law Civil Procedure Commercial Fraud Assignment of Contract Proceeds Notice of Assignment Service of Notice +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RHB Bank Berhad

Plaintiff

Granstep Development Sdn Bhd

Defendant

ML Sepakat Sdn Bhd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Division Recovery Suit (assignment of Contract Proceeds) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Borrower had absolutely assigned the Contract Proceeds to the Bank
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant received the Notice of Assignment (NOA)
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was obliged to pay the Contract Proceeds into the Borrower’s designated account

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the NOA was served on the Defendant because it did not call the Borrower’s representative or produce direct evidence of service; the presence of forged interim certificates and credible testimony that the Defendant was unaware of the NOA established that the Defendant was not bound by the NOA, therefore the Bank's claim for RM1,306,105.02 failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant