Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revocation of power of attorney

Legal area

Court

30 Jul 2024

ARIF SAZALI BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) WAKIL BAGI HARTA PUSAKA SI MATI SUKAR BIN MARKUM 2. ) MOHD NAZREE BIN KHALID 3. ) ZAINAB BINTI OTHMAN 4. ) RAYA BAIDURI SDN BHD 5. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT

Citation

BA-22NCvC-210-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-210-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove that the power of attorney was supported by valuable consideration and therefore it was deemed revoked under the Powers of Attorney Act 1949; Plaintiff also failed to prove conspiracy or that the Fifth Defendant committed error, fraud or negligence; Fourth Defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value of registered title and is protected by indefeasibility; accordingly Plaintiff's claims are dismissed and costs awarded against him.
30 Jul 2024

SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 1. ) HALUAN MENANG SDN BHD 2. ) COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCvC-371-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-371-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Plaintiff to be the beneficial owner and D1 to be a bare trustee; the 3rd Power of Attorney was conditional on full repayment by D2 and, given D2's failure to pay (and a subsisting default judgment), the 3rd PA is revocable and declared null and void. To enable completion of the project the Court ordered D1 to execute a fresh irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff with an indemnity clause and awarded costs against D2.
3 Nov 2022

ZIKAY GROUP BERHAD 1. ) Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

Citation

WA-24NCvC-391-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-391-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff's rights under the joint venture and supplemental agreements were monetary/corporate profit rights and not a registrable interest in the land under s323 NLC; therefore the plaintiff had no caveatable interest and the court refused to extend the Form 19C expiry or maintain the caveat.
7 Jul 2022

SL AQUA BUILDING SDN. BHD. ISMAIL BIN ABU HASSAN

Citation

AA-22NCvC-79-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-79-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The revocation of the Power of Attorney was valid because it was signed by two authorised directors in compliance with Companies Act s66 and there was insufficient evidence of duress; the Plaintiff materially breached the SPA by failing to pay the balance within the contractual period (time was of the essence), entitling the Defendant to lawfully terminate and forfeit the deposit; nonetheless the Plaintiff proved part benefits conferred and is entitled to restitution/compensation under s.71, resulting in an award totalling RM243,423.30 to the Plaintiff.
1 Jun 2022

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Tetuan Lopez And Partners

Citation

BA-22NCvC-333-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-333-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the P.A. was validly executed but was revoked upon the donor's death making the P.A. challenge academic (dismiss Suit 333). The court also found the propounder proved the deceased had testamentary capacity and dispelled suspicious circumstances for the third will executed 10.3.2016; accordingly the third will is valid, revokes the second will, Suit 649 was allowed and the counterclaim dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

ARIF SAZALI BIN ABDULLAH 1. ) WAKIL BAGI HARTA PUSAKA SI MATI SUKAR BIN MARKUM 2. ) MOHD NAZREE BIN KHALID 3. ) ZAINAB BINTI OTHMAN 4. ) RAYA BAIDURI SDN BHD 5. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH KUALA LANGAT

SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 1. ) HALUAN MENANG SDN BHD 2. ) COSMIC MASTER DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

ZIKAY GROUP BERHAD 1. ) Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

SL AQUA BUILDING SDN. BHD. ISMAIL BIN ABU HASSAN

XXXX 1. ) XXXX 2. ) Tetuan Lopez And Partners