Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of debts

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

JNH BINA SDN. BHD. Suhaimi Bin Sabudin PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Pulau Pinang

Citation

PA-37G-36-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-37G-36-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed and the Garnishee Order absolute is affirmed because the progressive payments due from the PDC were money belonging to the judgment debtor and therefore garnishable despite contractual assignments to SME Bank, particularly where the assignee did not intervene, some assignments post‑dated the judgment, and the judgment debtor repeatedly admitted the PDC owed it sums.
25 Sept 2023

TAIMOKU CORPORATION MUTIARA MOTORS PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-126-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-126-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Seizure Order from the Matsudo District Court cannot be enforced in Malaysia because that court is not a superior court of a reciprocating country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958; the Seizure Order is a preliminary procedural step that does not create liability against the defendant, and the substantive claim for invoices dated before 20.08.2013 is time barred under the Limitation Act 1953, therefore the plaintiff's claim fails and is dismissed.
11 Sept 2023

SPK-SENTOSA CORPORATION BERHAD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) 1. ) SEP CAPITAL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) PEMBINAAN SPK SDN BHD 3. ) TRW BOULEVARD SQUARE SDN BHD [NOD for R3 at Encl. 10]

Citation

WA-22NCC-407-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-407-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent judgment was declaratory only and contained no positive or executory obligation to execute a deed of assignment; the court lacked jurisdiction to unilaterally impose new obligations or vary the consent judgment without mutual consent and, additionally, any assignment would be ineffective without the Third Defendant's consent under the contract's non-assignment clause; accordingly the application for consequential orders was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.
27 Mar 2023

PEMPETISYEN SPK-SENTOSA CORPORATION BERHAD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) TRW BOULEVARD SQUARE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-237-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-237-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Petition was dismissed because the Petitioner was not a creditor of the Respondent for the purposes of presenting the winding-up petition: the Consent Judgment did not constitute an assignment in writing by the assignor as required by s 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 and the underlying contract contained a non-assignment clause making consent a precondition, so the statutory demand was ineffective and the Petitioner lacked locus to present the petition.
10 Dec 2021

SAFETY CAPITAL SDN BHD MALAYSIA STEEL WORKS (KL) BHD

Citation

BA-22NCC-82-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-82-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim was dismissed because it failed to prove fraud or dishonest conduct by the director on the balance of probabilities and failed to particularize fraud; contemporaneous documents and audited accounts evidenced regular intercompany transactions; the RM10,681,000 was validly and absolutely assigned to Soon Seng Co (Selangor) Sdn Bhd extinguishing Plaintiff's rights and the action was in any event time‑barred under the Limitation Act, leaving Plaintiff without locus to recover the sum.
11 May 2021

AMBANK (M) BERHAD MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was granted because the Plaintiff established a clear documentary right to a liquidated sum under an absolute assignment with proper notice; the Defendant failed to give written notice of discrepancy within the contractual period, made part payments accepting the arrangement, and did not raise specific pleaded facts or evidence sufficient to create triable issues; allegations of forgery and other irregularities were unsupported and insufficient to defeat the Order 14 application.
17 Sept 2020

CHIA SIEW HOCK 1. CHIA SEOW GIM 2. CHIA SIEW HENG

Citation

P-02(NCVC)(W)-595-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

P-02(NCVC)(W)-595-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appellant failed to prove the alleged oral agreement or that the Members' Circular Resolution reflected such an agreement; material inconsistencies, lack of statutory circulation to all eligible members, implausibility of the commercial outcome, assignment clause in the SPAs and public policy issues regarding the bumiputra lot rendered the Resolution unreliable or void; therefore proceeds must be distributed according to shareholding and the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's claim and allowance of respondents' counterclaim was upheld.

Malaysia Case Law

JNH BINA SDN. BHD. Suhaimi Bin Sabudin PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Pulau Pinang

TAIMOKU CORPORATION MUTIARA MOTORS PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS SDN BHD

SPK-SENTOSA CORPORATION BERHAD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) 1. ) SEP CAPITAL (M) SDN BHD 2. ) PEMBINAAN SPK SDN BHD 3. ) TRW BOULEVARD SQUARE SDN BHD [NOD for R3 at Encl. 10]

PEMPETISYEN SPK-SENTOSA CORPORATION BERHAD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN) TRW BOULEVARD SQUARE SDN BHD

SAFETY CAPITAL SDN BHD MALAYSIA STEEL WORKS (KL) BHD

AMBANK (M) BERHAD MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD

CHIA SIEW HOCK 1. CHIA SEOW GIM 2. CHIA SIEW HENG