Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of chose in action

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2025

IFCI LIMITED 1. ) BISHOPGATE CAPITAL LIMITED 2. ) ARCHIPELAGO INSURANCE LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCC-705-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-705-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved disbursement and valid assignment of the PN and endorsement of the AIL policy; presentment at maturity was made and 1st Defendant failed to pay, creating a protracted default that crystallised insurer's indemnity obligation. Defendants having accepted jurisdiction and participated in proceedings are estopped from invoking forum/arbitration defenses; insurer's asserted cancellations/fraud/non‑payment defenses failed for want of notice, proof and because insurer had endorsed and treated policy as subsisting. Therefore judgment entered for Plaintiff against both defendants for t…
1 Jul 2024

CHINA NATIONAL TECHNICAL IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION 1. ) PJD LINK (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Assignment of 3 April 2018 operated to assign present and future rights in the UBG to AIBB (and by vesting to ABMB); equitable assignment principles apply so the UBG, though issued later, relates back and vests in the assignee. The UBG was an unconditional, on‑demand guarantee; D1 could not unilaterally impose conditions or alter its character via the Notice of Assignment and Bank of China (Malaysia) Berhad had no capacity to accept such a modification. Therefore ABMB had the legal right to call on the UBG; the plaintiff's ex parte injunctions were unjustified and were set aside and the o…
1 Jul 2024

CHINA NATIONAL TECHNICAL IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION 1. ) PJD LINK (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the 3 April 2018 assignment was effective to transfer present and future rights (including the subsequently issued RM63,000,000 UBG) to AIBB and thus to ABMB on vesting; an unconditional on‑demand bank guarantee cannot be altered by conditions inserted by the original beneficiary in a notice to the issuing bank; accordingly ABMB was entitled to call on the Bank Guarantee and the plaintiff's originating summons and interlocutory relief were dismissed and the ex parte orders set aside.
1 Jul 2024

CHINA NATIONAL TECHNICAL IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION 1. ) PJD LINK (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The written Assignment dated 3 April 2018 was effective to assign the assignor's present and future rights in the Bank Guarantee to AIBB (subsequently vested in ABMB); the Bank Guarantee is an unconditional on‑demand guarantee and the assignee was entitled to call on it; the assignor could not lawfully impose post‑assignment conditions in the Notice of Assignment to convert the guarantee into a conditional instrument; accordingly the ex parte injunction was discharged and the plaintiff's originating summons dismissed as unsustainable.
16 Feb 2024

1. ) GENERALI INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) TEAMWORK M&E ENGINEERING SDN. BHD. DURA GUARD FORCE & CONSULTANCY SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-23NCvC-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCvC-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

A subrogation clause alone does not empower an insurer to sue a third party in the insurer's own name because it does not overcome the doctrine of privity; an absolute written assignment of the insured's chose in action, with notice under s.4(3) Civil Law Act 1956, is required to transfer the legal right and allow the insurer to sue in its own name.
27 Oct 2022

Pilecon Engineering Berhad Cahaya Kelang Construction

Citation

BA-24NCC-72-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-72-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff’s board resolution dated 14.8.2009 constituted a purported transaction within six months of Prizegard’s winding‑up and was therefore void under s.528 Companies Act 2016; independently, there was no valid assignment because the resolution was unilateral and not signed by Prizegard as assignor, and the settlement deeds confined remedies and nominees such that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue for the monetary sum; accordingly the originating summons must be dismissed.
3 Oct 2022

Y.M. RAJA HALINUDDIN BIN RAJA HALID (No. K/P: 561029-08-5619) RESIDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 342867-A)

Citation

22NCVC-55-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-55-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the 16.4.2009 instrument and surrounding correspondence created an absolute assignment satisfying Section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 (writing, absolute effect, and express notice to the Defendant); therefore the Plaintiff had locus to sue in his own name. The Defendant failed to prove reliable set-off quantum; on the evidence the Plaintiff proved damages of RM3,200,534.63. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for that sum with interest and costs of RM30,000.
27 Aug 2021

RINTIS MALAY MOTORS SDN. BHD. (Company No: 120864-P) AGASTA CO. LTD. (Company Registration No. In Japan: 0110-01-072500)

Citation

WA-22NCC-412-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-412-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Rintis failed to discharge the burden to prove coercion/duress; the Reconditioned Vehicles were delivered and unpaid so Rintis breached the contracts; NEXI validly acquired enforceable rights by subrogation/assignment under Japanese law and by a written assignment with notice satisfying s4(3) Civil Law Act 1956, therefore NEXI and Agasta have locus standi and are entitled to the claimed sums with interest and costs; Rintis' counterclaim and Suit 412 dismissed.
27 Aug 2021

1. AGASTA CO. LTD. (Company Registration No In Japan: 0110-01-072500) 2. NIPPON EXPORT AND INVESTMENT INSURANCE (Company Registration No In Japan: 0100-01-182633) RINTIS MALAY MOTORS SDN. BHD. (Company No: 120864-P)

Citation

WA-22NCC-132-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-132-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Rintis failed to prove coercion/duress; the court found Rintis breached the sales contracts and repayment agreement by not paying for delivered vehicles; NEXI has locus standi to sue in its own name because it received rights by subrogation/assignment under the Letter of Subrogation and Japanese law governs the insurance contract (Article 42), alternatively the assignment complied with s4(3) Civil Law Act; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiffs with specified monetary awards and dismissal of Rintis' counterclaim and Suit 412.
17 May 2021

MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD & DUA LAGI

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-28-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-28-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Bond is prima facie an on‑demand guarantee enforceable on a conforming demand, the court identified unresolved, material and complex issues from successive assignments and incomplete financing documentation that could render encashment unconscionable and unjust at this interlocutory stage; accordingly the balance of convenience favoured restraining the beneficiary/assignee from receiving or utilising Bond proceeds pending resolution of those issues in arbitration or further declaratory proceedings, while not restraining the issuer bank from payment per se.