Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality under moneylenders act

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2024

SYED GAMAL BIN SYED KECHIK AL-BUKHARY 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

Citation

WA-22NCC-62-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-62-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to prove that the 1st Defendant sustained losses during the contractual investment periods that would trigger Section 4.03; absence of evidence and lack of notice to the Plaintiff meant the exclusion clause could not relieve defendants of their contractual obligations, therefore the agreements and guarantees are enforceable and defendants are jointly and severally liable for the sums ordered; counterclaim struck out.
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…
20 Oct 2022

Tham Wooi Loon Shahul Hamid bin Mohd Ismail

Citation

BA-22NCvC-170-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-170-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the agreement was a hybrid transaction (loan with elements of business venture) rather than a moneylending agreement; the moratorium was lifted and REH sold shares such that the Defendant's repayment obligation crystallised; the Defendant, having control as REH director, failed to cause dividends to be declared and cannot rely on that failure to avoid repayment; the Moneylenders Act presumption was inapplicable or rebutted on the facts and terms; accordingly Plaintiff entitled to principal, contractual share of dividends, interest and costs.
21 Jan 2020

Foo Swee Chin Low Hock Heng

Citation

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-15-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the settlement agreement dated 11 July 2013 was initiated by the Defendant's solicitors, voluntarily executed, acted upon by payments, and there was no credible evidence of coercion or that the transaction constituted illegal moneylending; therefore the Sessions Court's factual findings were not plainly wrong and its judgment for the Plaintiff based on the settlement agreement was upheld.

Malaysia Case Law

SYED GAMAL BIN SYED KECHIK AL-BUKHARY 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG

TOE HONG CHOO PIONG CHOONG FAH

Tham Wooi Loon Shahul Hamid bin Mohd Ismail

Foo Swee Chin Low Hock Heng