Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforceability of loan agreements

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2024

THARMALINGAM A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) KOKULA BALAN A/L EHAMBARAM 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-49-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 10OA presumption was properly raised because the agreement imposed monthly payments in excess of the principal; the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he was carrying on the business of moneylending; therefore the loan arrangement was part of unlicensed moneylending and unenforceable, and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Sept 2024

TOE HONG CHOO PIONG CHOONG FAH

Citation

WA-22NCvC-682-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-682-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities she lent RM1,520,000 and the Loan Agreement containing 1.3% p.m. administration charges is genuine; defendant's pleaded sham defence and testimony denying receipt made it an abuse to later assert an alternative inconsistent defence of illegality not pleaded; statutory presumption under s10OA MA1951 was rebutted by the spousal relationship, lack of system/continuity, absence of advertising as a moneylender and non-exorbitant interest, therefore the agreement is not an unenforceable moneylending agreement under s15 MA1951 and judgment is entered for…
24 Jul 2024

ZAMANI BIN HAMZAH Che Rahimah Binti Shaary

Citation

DA-22NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-6-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the registrations were effected improperly and prematurely by the solicitor acting for and favouring the lender; there was absence of notice, lack of evidence of default procedures, indicia of document falsity and failure to respect mandatory land security mechanisms in the National Land Code. Accordingly the transfers from Roslan to Hamzah and from Hamzah to the Plaintiff were not legally effective; s.340 indefeasibility did not protect those registrations because they were tainted by misconduct/fraud and equity requires restoration to the prio…
17 Jan 2024

Osteria Food and Beverage Sdn Bhd 1. ) Phoenix Consulting Services 2. ) CHUNG LEE SAN 3. ) NEIL VERNAD FREDIANI

Citation

WA-22NCvC-101-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-101-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to show Defendants breached the consultancy agreement or proved actual loss of profits; KPIs were projections and not proven binding in the pandemic context; Plaintiff had no standing to enforce the separate loan agreement between Joseph and Defendants due to privity; however Plaintiff repudiated/terminated the agreement and Defendants were entitled to compensation under section 74 Contracts Act 1950 for the unexpired contractual period in the sum of RM150,188.18 with interest and costs.
27 Dec 2021

Chew Tuan Hong 1. ) RAVINDRAN A/L G VELOO 2. ) Suriakala A/p Munasamy

Citation

JB-12BNCC-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12BNCC-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the appellant to be an unlicensed moneylender and that evidence established the transaction was interest-bearing and not a genuine interest-free "friendly" loan; accordingly the loan agreement was unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951, the actual sum disbursed (RM93,250) less payments made (RM84,000) produced a recoverable balance of RM9,250 only, with no interest, and the appellant's caveats on the two properties were to be removed and prohibited going forward.
25 Mar 2021

AZIO E-PAY SERVICE MALAYSIA SDN BHD [ No.Syarikat: 700558-K ] 1. ) NORIMAH BINTI THAMRIN [ No.K/P : 810511016018 ] 2. ) NOOR AZLAN BIN ABD GHAFAR [ No.K/P : 810701146243 ]

Citation

JA-A72NCC-1123-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCC-1123-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The claim was statute-barred: plaintiff failed to plead or prove an acknowledgement within s.26(2) Limitation Act 1953 and failed to meet the formal requirements of s.27; plaintiff also failed to demonstrate it held a moneylender licence as required by the Moneylenders Act 1951; accordingly the writ and statement of claim disclosed no sustainable cause of action and were struck out under O18 r19 ROC 2012 with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

THARMALINGAM A/L MUNIANDY 1. ) KOKULA BALAN A/L EHAMBARAM 2. ) RHB BANK BERHAD

TOE HONG CHOO PIONG CHOONG FAH

ZAMANI BIN HAMZAH Che Rahimah Binti Shaary

Osteria Food and Beverage Sdn Bhd 1. ) Phoenix Consulting Services 2. ) CHUNG LEE SAN 3. ) NEIL VERNAD FREDIANI

Chew Tuan Hong 1. ) RAVINDRAN A/L G VELOO 2. ) Suriakala A/p Munasamy

AZIO E-PAY SERVICE MALAYSIA SDN BHD [ No.Syarikat: 700558-K ] 1. ) NORIMAH BINTI THAMRIN [ No.K/P : 810511016018 ] 2. ) NOOR AZLAN BIN ABD GHAFAR [ No.K/P : 810701146243 ]