Malaysia Case Law

15 Jun 2022

Wan Nur Shafida Binti Wan Hashim bagi pihak [Tetuan Seow & Megat] 1. ) Zul Helmi Bin Wakiman @ Wagiman bagi pihak Pertama [Tetuan Anandan Krishnan, Sahrihan & Partners] 2. ) Franky Irwan Bin Abdul Rashid bagi pihak [Jabatan Insolvensi Malay

Citation

WA-29PB-293-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-29PB-293-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held that applicant by filing a proof of debt without referring to or reserving its security was treated as surrendering its security and proving for the whole debt; consequently all payments received from the bankrupt after the bankruptcy order (total RM142,897.87, including surplus RM38,299.14) vested in the Director General of Insolvency and must be delivered to the Director; applicant ordered to release the funds to the Director within 14 days and to bear costs as ordered.

• Secured creditor rights
• Proof of debt
• Vesting of bankrupt's property
• Assignment of property
• Entitlement to surplus funds

10 Sept 2020

AB RAHIM BIN GHALIM BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-96-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22M-96-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the proposed intervener failed to establish a legal interest in the subject matter (his stake is a commercial shareholder interest only), and judicial estoppel barred him from challenging the Deed of Assignment which had been treated as valid in prior proceedings; his ability to testify as a witness negated the necessity to join him as a party and the document‑production request under O.18 r.12(3) was misconceived.

• Intervention
• Judicial estoppel
• Forgery allegation
• Assignment of property
• Summary judgment
• Locus standi

29 Aug 2019

CONVOBUILT SDN. BHD KPTC RESORT DEVELOPMENT BERHAD

Citation

B-02(NCVC)(W)-2023-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court

NCVC

Case number

B-02(NCVC)(W)-2023-10/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

On a commercial construction of the Settlement Agreement, the 24 Redemption Units were assigned solely for the purpose of enabling the defendant to redeem charged properties; the defendant never paid the redemption sum and the charge was later discharged, rendering the purpose impossible; equity requires imposition of a constructive trust so that beneficial interest in the Redemption Units revests in the plaintiff; the background letter (ID-1) was admissible and supported this construction; the defendant's third-party Kemas Budi arrangement did not absolve it as there was no privity and no ev…

• Settlement agreement interpretation
• Constructive trust
• Resulting trust
• Assignment of property
• Redemption of charged property
• Unjust enrichment

KEMAYAN ENGINEERING (SEA) PTE LTD V. SUNYAP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

KEMAYAN ENGINEERING (SEA) PTE LTD V. SUNYAP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Court

Malaysian court

Clause 6(9) was not procured by morally reprehensible conduct and is not unconscionable per se given the plaintiff was a commercial purchaser who freely entered the contract; however, because the developer failed to show steps taken to procure strata titles and had delayed issuance for over ten years, it would be unjust to allow enforcement of the RM10,000 administrative charge for an indefinite period; plaintiff is therefore liable only for actual costs and expenses incidental to the transfer and endorsement.

• Unconscionability
• Administrative fee
• Strata title
• Assignment of property
• Consideration
• Laches