Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undue influence and duress

Legal area

Court

22 Jul 2025

1. ) Muhammad Halim Al-Hafiz Bin Ramli 2. ) Siti Mazrizan Binti Tohid 3. ) Nurul Ain Binti Siuti 4. ) Zurlia Binti Siuti 5. ) Siti Aisah Binti Mohd Tahir 1. ) Suhaimi Bin Sabilan 2. ) Hanita & Co. 3. ) Muhibina Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCvC-359-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-359-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendment was not bona fide (filed only after the respondent adduced evidence, with no credible explanation or corroboration), would cause prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, and would fundamentally change the nature and character of the original defence from forgery to duress/undue influence.
19 Apr 2024

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. 1. ) PREMIUM PLAZA SDN. BHD. 2. ) PANG YEE HONG (FANG YIFENG) 3. ) DARREN LOW JUN JIE 4. ) ONG AH CHOO

Citation

WA-22NCC-925-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-925-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the affidavits and contract documents the court found no bona fide triable issues: the Facility Agreement and Letter of Offer permitted the prescribed default interest and notice was given; correspondence admitted liability and was not protected by without prejudice privilege; Debenture, Facility Agreement and Guarantee expressly preserved cumulative and concurrent remedies so Plaintiff was not obliged to first realise security before suing guarantors; allegations of undue influence were unparticularised and unsupported. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate in favour of Plaintiff for…
19 Jul 2022

Chiang Dyi Woei TAN SIEW NEE

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-117-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-117-01/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court findings of fact that the Borrower/Vendor was an experienced investor who knowingly entered and abetted illegal moneylending transactions, accepted the expert's handwriting opinion and adverse inferences for failure to call key witnesses; applying the flexible approach to illegality the court concluded it would be disproportionate and unjust to grant monetary relief to the Borrower/Vendor and affirmed dismissal of claims except for granting vacant possession to Miss Chew.
18 Dec 2019

1. ) CHEW YEE HUI (NO.KP: 840425-13-5472) IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION 2. ) TAN SIEW NEE (NO.K/P: 550925-04-5136) IN THE COUNTER CLAIM 1. ) TAN SIEW NEE (NO.K/P: 550925-04-5136) IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION 2. ) 1. CHIANG DYI WOEI (No. KP: 840613-08-58

Citation

JA-22NCVC-193-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-193-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the loans, the initial and new SPAs and the Tenancy Agreements were illegal and sham; however the counterclaim Plaintiff was complicit and had unclean hands and thus was not entitled to relief; accordingly all claims and counterclaims were dismissed except that the Second Defendant was entitled to vacant possession and the Third Defendant was awarded costs of MYR35,000.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) Muhammad Halim Al-Hafiz Bin Ramli 2. ) Siti Mazrizan Binti Tohid 3. ) Nurul Ain Binti Siuti 4. ) Zurlia Binti Siuti 5. ) Siti Aisah Binti Mohd Tahir 1. ) Suhaimi Bin Sabilan 2. ) Hanita & Co. 3. ) Muhibina Sdn Bhd

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD. 1. ) PREMIUM PLAZA SDN. BHD. 2. ) PANG YEE HONG (FANG YIFENG) 3. ) DARREN LOW JUN JIE 4. ) ONG AH CHOO

Chiang Dyi Woei TAN SIEW NEE

1. ) CHEW YEE HUI (NO.KP: 840425-13-5472) IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION 2. ) TAN SIEW NEE (NO.K/P: 550925-04-5136) IN THE COUNTER CLAIM 1. ) TAN SIEW NEE (NO.K/P: 550925-04-5136) IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION 2. ) 1. CHIANG DYI WOEI (No. KP: 840613-08-58