Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality of contracts

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2026

AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 1. ) Lonely Planet Inn Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Joann Wen Law 3. ) Ong Phaik Kooi (Mendakwa Sebagai Seorang Wasi & Wakil Kepada Si Mati, Law Nam Poh (No. K/p: 501006-08-5099) 4. ) Law Wey Ann 5. ) Ong Phaik Kooi 6.

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1499-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1499-08/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal dismissed: Appellant failed to prove WSIA was in force in Pahang during 2010–2018 so illegality defence failed; alternatively, even if licence was required the 10th Respondent was entitled to restitution or quantum meruit assessed at the undisputed RM30 per unit; equitable set-off was permissible given the close factual nexus between water charges and maintenance obligations; and the counterclaim failed for lack of credible evidence.
21 Apr 2025

LUA THIANG POH 1. ) KABIR SINGH A/L JAGIR SINGH 2. ) JASMINDER KAUR A/P JASBIR SINGH 3. ) MANJEET SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH 4. ) KAWALJEET KAUR A/P DARSHAN SINGH 5. ) YOKIN RESOURCES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-283-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-283-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Promissory notes were inadmissible and unenforceable because stamping occurred after execution and lacked proper LHDN endorsement; no consideration moved to the individual makers (D1–D4) so the notes are void as against them; the transactions were loans not investments and the plaintiff failed to rebut the s10OA presumption, rendering the agreements void under s15 of the Moneylenders Act 1951; plaintiff also failed the contractual 3‑month notice requirement; claim dismissed and plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs.
20 Mar 2025

1. ) Agasta Co. Ltd 2. ) Nippon Export and Investment Insurance AUTOPULENCE SDN BHD

Citation

B-03(IM)-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-03(IM)-3-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the contractual arrangements between the respondents and Rintis contravened the MITI Dasar Baharu AP Terbuka and amounted to arrangements intended to circumvent public policy; such contracts are void ab initio under section 24(e) Contracts Act 1950, therefore title to the 29 vehicles never passed to respondents notwithstanding payment; appeals allowed and deputy registrar's orders restored.
30 Aug 2024

Lakhbeer Singh A/L Ajaib Singh Thamil Chelvam A/L Subramaniam

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-239-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-239-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the SPA was a sham and served as collateral for an illegal moneylending arrangement: the plaintiff (a licensed moneylender) charged and received interest inconsistent with statutory form/limits, failed to stamp the SPA, failed to take steps to obtain required consent and did not follow prescribed moneylending formalities; accordingly the SPA was void for illegality under Contracts Act s24 and unenforceable, and specific performance was denied.
22 Jan 2024

1. ) Siva Kumar A/L Jeyapalan 2. ) AMMSA Property Sdn. Bhd. Firwas Sdn. Bhd PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K.RAGAVAN 2. ) Shoba A/p Govindasamy 3. ) Jasim Sura Puthucheary (D2 Dlm Tuntuan Balas Thevandran)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance of probabilities that negotiations had been aborted, the alleged SPA was a sham created by a tri-partite conspiracy (fraudulent purchaser Siva, fraudulent agent Thevan, and an unqualified/forging conveyancer Usha and her firm); Firwas never accepted or signed the SPA; caveat lodged by Siva was wrongful; Firwas entitled to removal of caveat, damages for loss of use/opportunity (interest at 8% p.a. on RM52,200,000 from accrual date until 14 days after caveat removal), exemplary damages, and indemnity costs against the fraudsters.
24 Nov 2023

LEE KUANG GEN TAN SRI DATO' SERI DR M MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2021-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-2021-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the SOGAs were in substance sham documents recording cash loans and monetised gold advances from TSM to DC with interest; the bank evidence and admissions triggered the rebuttable presumption under s.10OA MLA which TSM failed to rebut; consequently TSM carried on an unlicensed moneylending business and the loans/agreements are void and unenforceable under s.15 MLA and void for illegality under Contracts Act s.24; High Court decision was set aside and declarations granted that the SOGAs are void under the MLA.
17 May 2023

CHE NORMAH BT CHE KERMA 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) Chang Ai Nee

Citation

WA-22NCC-503-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-503-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On construction of the agreement it is an investment agreement, not an illegal moneylending transaction; D1 breached by failing to pay the Investment Redemption Sum, and its extension letters and part payments constitute unequivocal acknowledgements of debt; D2 and D3 executed continuing guarantees and are jointly and severally liable; defendants failed to raise any bona fide triable issue or show consent was absent under s.86 such as would discharge the sureties; accordingly summary judgment was entered against D2 and D3 while proceedings against D1 were adjourned due to pending judicial man…
2 May 2023

1. ) Dato Dr Ng Meng Kee 2. ) Ng Meng Poh Rightlink Capital Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1012-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1012-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's exercise of discretion to dismiss the Order 14A applications because the issues of whether the services constituted 'regulated activities' and whether a licence was required were intertwined with contested factual matters and voluminous documentary and potentially expert evidence; therefore the questions could not be decided summarily on the pleadings and required a full trial; no appellate misdirection was shown.
9 Feb 2023

1. ) KBH MARINE INDUSTRY SDN. BHD. 2. ) Sin Soon Hock Sdn Bhd 1. ) PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN BHD 2. ) Chin Swee Chong 3. ) TAN POO CHUAN 4. ) YEO BOON LEONG 5. ) TAN SEOK GAIK 6. ) LIM SOO AUN 7. ) KOAY YEAT YEE 8. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCVC-74-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-74-05/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Loan Agreement dated 20.10.2017 between the borrower (D1) and Ace Credit (D8) contravened mandatory provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1951 and is null and void; documents and security instruments executed pursuant to that illegal transaction (including the Charge and caveats) are tainted and incapable of enforcement; however where monies and benefits were received by the borrowers/chargors the court ordered restitution under s66 Contracts Act by requiring repayment/adjustment of amounts received subject to lawful set‑offs and specified timelines.
10 Feb 2022

1. Ghandi Rajan a/l Arjunan 2. Malaercoady a/p Kumarasamy 3. Yow Man Kong @ Senthil Kumar Yow Man Kong @ Senthil Kumar

Citation

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-275-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the totality of contemporaneous documents and conduct the SPA of 10.01.2013 was a sham masking an interest-bearing loan; the Defendant was an unlicensed moneylender; the Settlement Agreement flowed from and was tainted by that illegality; the Sessions Court judgment based on the tainted settlement was obtained in circumstances amounting to fraud on the court and is set aside; monetary losses lie where they fall and each party bears own costs.