Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of assignment

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2024

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. ) HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD 2. ) SENI KENANGA SDN BHD 3. ) HJ SAID BINAAN SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-112-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-112-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Deed of Assignment and the NACI satisfied s.4(3) CLA: they constituted a written absolute assignment with express notice to the debtor, thereby transferring the legal right to the proceeds and the plaintiff’s right to sue the 1st defendant in its own name; the NACI bound the 1st defendant (and estoppel applied because of prior compliance); the evidence did not support genuine termination of the JV nor the existence of LAD and back charges sufficient to extinguish the proceeds; the Letter of Undertaking constituted an admission of debt and was binding and could not be unilaterally revoked…
5 Jan 2022

MODALKU VENTURES SDN. BHD. BESI GAYA (KLANG) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-133-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-133-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant accepted the Notice of Assignment and failed to pay sums into the Plaintiff's designated account; the alleged oral assurance and invoice discrepancies were unsubstantiated or corrected and did not raise triable issues; payments to KSSISB do not discharge Defendant's contractual obligation to the assignee under a valid notice of assignment; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the Plaintiff.
10 Dec 2021

MODALKU VENTURES SDN BHD JIT HOE RESOURCES SDN BHD (dahulunya yang dikenali sebagai Jit Hoe Hardward Sdn Bhd)

Citation

WA-22NCC-132-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-132-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff proved a valid absolute assignment in writing with notice to the Defendant; the Defendant’s own admissions and conduct (acknowledgement of the Notice, payments to the Plaintiff, email confirmation) contradict allegations of fraud and show the assignment covered future debts; those allegations are bare, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and not triable, therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.
5 Apr 2021

Ooi Ai Yen for the Applicant [Messrs Benjamin Dawson] Lim Woi Ken and R Maran for the Respondent [Messrs The Law Office of Maran Ram]

Citation

POST COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-406-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

POST COMPANIES WINDING UP NO. WA-28PW-406-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the evidence that the Applicant held an absolute assignment/equitable mortgage over the unit with notice to the Company prior to the Vesting Order, such that the unit was not company property and could not be vested in the Liquidator; the Liquidator had sufficient notice and therefore must account as a bare trustee; laches did not bar relief; accordingly the unit is excluded from the Vesting Order and leave to pursue the Applicant's claim against the Liquidator is granted.
9 Mar 2020

KIMSTYLEZ FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 969910-D) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA KONDOMINIUM BBK

Citation

BA-12BNCVC-62-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCVC-62-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the 5.5.2015 letter constituted an absolute assignment satisfying Civil Law Act s4(3) because it was written, absolute in effect and notice reached the Defendant (evidenced by the defendant's chop and admissions); the Defendant's silence and continued acceptance of services and invoices estopped them from denying the assignment or privity; consent was unnecessary where notice was given; non‑registration under the Valuers Act attracted penal consequences but did not render the contract void. Therefore the Sessions Court was wrong and the appeal succeeds.
18 Feb 2020

RHB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 6171-M) GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No.: 769692-A)

Citation

WA-22NCC-488-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-488-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Bank failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the NOA was served on the Defendant because it did not call the Borrower’s representative or produce direct evidence of service; the presence of forged interim certificates and credible testimony that the Defendant was unaware of the NOA established that the Defendant was not bound by the NOA, therefore the Bank's claim for RM1,306,105.02 failed.

Malaysia Case Law

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. ) HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD 2. ) SENI KENANGA SDN BHD 3. ) HJ SAID BINAAN SDN BHD

MODALKU VENTURES SDN. BHD. BESI GAYA (KLANG) SDN. BHD.

MODALKU VENTURES SDN BHD JIT HOE RESOURCES SDN BHD (dahulunya yang dikenali sebagai Jit Hoe Hardward Sdn Bhd)

Ooi Ai Yen for the Applicant [Messrs Benjamin Dawson] Lim Woi Ken and R Maran for the Respondent [Messrs The Law Office of Maran Ram]

KIMSTYLEZ FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 969910-D) BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA KONDOMINIUM BBK

RHB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 6171-M) GRANSTEP DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (Company No.: 769692-A)