1. ) ZAMRI BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) MOHD HANIF BIN ABDUL RAHMAN HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

1. ) ZAMRI BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) MOHD HANIF BIN ABDUL RAHMAN HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD

The court found the defendant had effectively admitted liability to the auction surplus so only quantum remained; the defendant's claim to deduct RM41,672.40 was time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 s6(1); clause 18 of the LACA terminated the agreement on completion of the sale so the bank could not rely on clause 14(c) thereafter to justify set-off; the solicitors' fees claim of RM35,360 had already been paid; accordingly the defendant had no meritorious defence and the plaintiffs' summary judgment and strike out applications should succeed.

Citation
RA-12ANCvC-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Zamri bin Ibrahim; Appellant / Plaintiff: Mohd Hanif bin Abdul Rahman; Respondent / Defendant: Hong Leong Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Case Number
RA-12ANCvC-6-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals by the plaintiffs/appellants allowed; the Sessions Court decision set aside; plaintiffs' applications for summary judgment and to strike out the defendant's counterclaim granted.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Striking Out Pleadings (order 18/rule 19), Set Off, Mortgagee Power of Sale / Auction Proceeds, Limitation (limitation Act 1953)
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Banking Law Property Law Limitation Law Summary Judgment (order 14) Striking Out Pleadings (order 18/rule 19) Set Off +2 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zamri bin Ibrahim

Appellant / Plaintiff

Mohd Hanif bin Abdul Rahman

Appellant / Plaintiff

Hong Leong Bank Berhad

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's counterclaim/set-off should be struck out under Order 18 r 19
  3. 3 Whether the bank was entitled to deduct auction costs and solicitors' fees from sale proceeds under clause 14(c) LACA

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the defendant had effectively admitted liability to the auction surplus so only quantum remained; the defendant's claim to deduct RM41,672.40 was time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 s6(1); clause 18 of the LACA terminated the agreement on completion of the sale so the bank could not rely on clause 14(c) thereafter to justify set-off; the solicitors' fees claim of RM35,360 had already been paid; accordingly the defendant had no meritorious defence and the plaintiffs' summary judgment and strike out applications should succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeals by the plaintiffs/appellants allowed; the Sessions Court decision set aside; plaintiffs' applications for summary judgment and to strike out the defendant's counterclaim granted.

Orders

  • Both appeals allowed and the decision of the Sessions Court set aside
  • Plaintiffs' application for summary judgment (Order 14) granted and defendant's counterclaim/set-off struck out (Order 18 r 19)