Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Friendly loan

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2026

PRAKASH A/L RAMALINGAM NUR AMIRAH BINTI ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-B52NCC-1770-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCC-1770-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that loans were advanced by documentary bank transfers and the defendant admitted indebtedness in court; the defendant failed to discharge the burden to contradict those facts, therefore judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the adjusted outstanding sum and costs on scale; an insurance policy naming the plaintiff as beneficiary is only a guarantee and does not extinguish the cash debt absent full payment.
18 Nov 2025

WONG JIN JING PUAN SRI DATIN ONG KAI WOY (Pentadbir Harta Pesaka Tan Sri Dato' Lim Bah menurut Perintah Surat Kuasa Mentadbir bertarikh 11-02-2022)

Citation

JB-22NCC-4-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCC-4-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claims for repayment of friendly loans accrued on their respective dates of disbursement and therefore the six‑year limitation ran from each loan date; sections 19, 23 and 24 of the Limitation Act 1953 do not extend or suspend limitation for a creditor’s contractual claim against an estate, and absence of a grant does not suspend limitation; accordingly the plaintiff's claims were time‑barred and the strike‑out application succeeds.
10 Oct 2025

JOHNNY ANG 1. ) LIM LI LIAN 2. ) LIM WING WAI PIHAK YANG DIGARNIS CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court accepted plaintiff's contemporaneous documentary and video evidence, admitted the video through its maker with s90A certification, found Defendant 1 received the cash and validly signed the friendly loan agreement and cheque, rejected Defendant 1's coercion defence for lack of contemporaneous evidence and inconsistent conduct (including failure to report to police and failure to call the lawyer), and held Defendant 2 not liable as partner because the loan was a personal transaction outside the partnership's ordinary business and no authority was proven.
24 Sept 2025

LING SIEW LIAN CHIN CHI MING

Citation

JA-11BNCC-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-11BNCC-5-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The magistrate's factual findings that the two bank transfers were friendly loans were supported by documentary evidence and the defendant's admissions; the defendant failed to call the material witness Lee Tien Full, attracting the adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; there was no basis for the High Court to disturb the magistrate's findings, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the magistrate's judgment affirmed.
31 Jul 2025

PEMPETISYEN RAJBIR KAUR 1. ) HARJIT SINGH A/L KARTAR SINGH 2. ) BALVINDER KAUR A/P TARLOCHAN SINGH

Citation

BA-33-425-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-425-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner failed to plead essential particulars and a specific prayer for repayment and did not discharge the burden of proof that the transfers were loans; bank statements alone and irregular annotated transfers were insufficient to establish an enforceable friendly loan, therefore the claim for RM126,261.00 was dismissed.
11 Jul 2025

1. ) LIM KON LIAN 2. ) LIM MING CHANG 1. ) HALIM SHAH HARLEM SHAHNON BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ANDREW SURIADY SJOEKOER

Citation

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that the 1st Plaintiff made a RM3,500,000 friendly loan to both Defendants on 18.8.2020, the 1st Defendant signed the Written Loan Agreement dated 18.8.2020, the cash was handed over at Hong Leong Bank Bukit Damansara, subsequent transfers totalling RM1,764,000 were repayments of that loan, and the 2nd Defendant is jointly liable under the principal loan agreement despite not being a signatory.
11 Jul 2025

1. ) LIM KON LIAN 2. ) LIM MING CHANG 1. ) HALIM SHAH HARLEM SHAHNON BIN ABDULLAH 2. ) ANDREW SURIADY SJOEKOER

Citation

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-553-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that a joint friendly loan of RM3,500,000 was agreed and disbursed on 18.8.2020 to both Defendants; the Written Loan Agreement bearing the 1st Defendant's signature is authentic; contemporaneous bank records, independent bank employee testimony, photograph metadata, WhatsApp communications and the Defendants' subsequent conduct and remittance descriptions establish that RM1,764,000 were repayments; the 2nd Defendant is liable despite not signing because he requested, received benefit and made repayments under the principal Loan Agreement; accord…
28 Jan 2025

Loo An Swee 1. ) Pang Kim Chon 2. ) Loo Bon Lan

Citation

BA-22NCC-64-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-64-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found plaintiff proved only that RM835,000 was paid and received but failed to prove the payments were loans; defendants discharged burden by producing contemporaneous documents, communications and a prompt denial in response to demand establishing that payments were part payments of agreed brokerage fees, therefore plaintiff's claim dismissed and defendants' counterclaim allowed for the outstanding brokerage balance.
27 Jan 2025

ABDUL JALIL BIN ABDUL MUTHALIB KEKATONG SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-50559-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved payment of RM40,000 to DMIS on behalf of the Defendant and proved an oral agreement (friendly loan) that the Defendant would repay when it had funds; limitation did not bar the claim because repayment was conditional on demand and Plaintiff made effective demand only after Defendant became capable of repayment following the interpleader order on 27 November 2023, therefore the writ filed 20 December 2023 was within six years.
6 Nov 2024

Anthony Raj A/L Ayakaram Joseph Yap Tian Tion

Citation

WA-12ANCC-72-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-72-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Dismissal of the application was warranted because the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory and timely explanation for the nine‑month delay; the judgment had been properly extracted and served on the appellant's solicitors and the appellant had personal notice via a Bankruptcy Notice referencing the judgment; solicitor misconduct or bankruptcy of the former solicitor did not absolve the appellant from complying with time limits and no sufficient evidence of non‑notification or overriding merits was shown to justify extension.