PANG VENG YAEN LEE MEI KIM

PANG VENG YAEN LEE MEI KIM

On the totality of evidence the Court found the two SPAs were sham transactions disguising loans: the plaintiff advanced money to pay stamp duty via solicitor, charged interest at 5% per month, had no licence, funds were not received by defendants and repayment was structured as a buy-back option—invoking the presumption under s10OA MA1951 which plaintiff failed to rebut—therefore agreements contravened s15 MA1951 and were unenforceable; the High Court’s findings were set aside and both appeals allowed.

Citation
N-02(NCvC)(W)-802-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / 1st Defendant: Tang Ser Chiew; Appellant / 2nd Defendant: Lim Yar Ting; Appellant / 5th Defendant: Pang Veng Yaen; Respondent / Plaintiff: Lee Mei Kim; Defendant (3rd): TETUAN HEE & LIM (law firm); Defendant (4th): Public Bank Berhad
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 October 2025
Case Number
N-02(NCvC)(W)-802-05/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From High Court / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals N 02(ncv C)(w) 792 05/2024 and N 02(ncv C)(w) 802 05/2024
Outcome
Both appeals allowed. Appeal No. N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 allowed; High Court decision dated 1.8.2024 set aside. Appeal No. N-02(NCvC)(W)-802-05/2024 allowed; injunction/order dated 18.4.2024 against 5th defendant set aside.
Legal Topics
Sham Agreement, Moneylending, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Unenforceability Under S15 Moneylenders Act 1951, Presumption Under S10 OA, Injunction, Caveat, Sections 91 and 92 Evidence Act 1950
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Moneylenders Act / Regulatory Offences Civil Procedure Evidence Sham Agreement Moneylending Sale and Purchase Agreement +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Ser Chiew

Appellant / 1st Defendant

Lim Yar Ting

Appellant / 2nd Defendant

Pang Veng Yaen

Appellant / 5th Defendant

Lee Mei Kim

Respondent / Plaintiff

TETUAN HEE & LIM (law firm)

Defendant (3rd)

Public Bank Berhad

Defendant (4th)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From High Court / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals N 02(ncv C)(w) 792 05/2024 and N 02(ncv C)(w) 802 05/2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two SPAs dated 31.12.2015 were sham agreements masking an illegal moneylending transaction under the Moneylenders Act 1951
  2. 2 Whether the learned Judicial Commissioner erred by failing to consider illegality/moneylending issue
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is an unlicensed moneylender and thus the SPAs are unenforceable under s15 MA1951

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of evidence the Court found the two SPAs were sham transactions disguising loans: the plaintiff advanced money to pay stamp duty via solicitor, charged interest at 5% per month, had no licence, funds were not received by defendants and repayment was structured as a buy-back option—invoking the presumption under s10OA MA1951 which plaintiff failed to rebut—therefore agreements contravened s15 MA1951 and were unenforceable; the High Court’s findings were set aside and both appeals allowed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals allowed. Appeal No. N-02(NCvC)(W)-792-05/2024 allowed; High Court decision dated 1.8.2024 set aside. Appeal No. N-02(NCvC)(W)-802-05/2024 allowed; injunction/order dated 18.4.2024 against 5th defendant set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal 792 allowed and judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner dated 1.8.2024 set aside; plaintiff's claim dismissed for failing to prove case; costs RM 50,000 to appellants subject to allocator.
  • Appeal 802 allowed and order/injunction against 5th defendant dated 18.4.2024 set aside; costs RM 20,000 to 5th defendant subject to allocator.