UNIVERSAL FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD 1. ) RFC MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

UNIVERSAL FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD 1. ) RFC MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Summary judgment was refused because the existence of conflicting documentary evidence from the developer (exhibits T-15 vs MKM-6 and MKM-7) and other matters raised triable issues as to ownership and validity of the transfers; the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirement under O.14 that there be no triable issue and the reliefs sought could not be cleanly separated between the two defendants.

Citation
PA-22NCVC-132-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Universal Flexible Technology Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: RFC Management Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 July 2021
Case Number
PA-22NCVC-132-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (guaman Sivil) / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (o.14)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Double Sale, Trust and Trustee, Validity of Transfer, Buyer in Possession, Chargee as Purchaser, Foreclosure/auction, Triable Issue
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Property Law Strata Title Equity Injunctions Contract/secured Lending Summary Judgment Double Sale +6 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Flexible Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

RFC Management Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (guaman Sivil) / Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (o.14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff satisfied the preliminary requirements and entitlement to summary judgment under O.14
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the three strata units
  3. 3 Whether sales and transfers to defendant 1 and subsequent assignment to defendant 2 were valid

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because the existence of conflicting documentary evidence from the developer (exhibits T-15 vs MKM-6 and MKM-7) and other matters raised triable issues as to ownership and validity of the transfers; the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirement under O.14 that there be no triable issue and the reliefs sought could not be cleanly separated between the two defendants.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Application under Order 14 dismissed
  • Costs in the cause