Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cause to the contrary

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2025

MBSB BANK BERHAD WARDAH PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24MFC-189-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-189-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiff proved proper service and satisfied statutory prerequisites; foreclosure under Section 256 is an in rem remedy independent of the in personam setting-aside application; the Mareva injunction bound the parent company only and did not legally prevent enforcement of the Defendant's charged property by the secured creditor; accordingly no cause to the contrary was established and an order for sale was required under Section 256(3) NLC.
29 Aug 2025

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD 1. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN 2. ) CHONG POOI NEE

Citation

BA-24FC-322-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-322-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to adduce factual basis constituting a cause to the contrary under section 256(3) NLC; service was valid under the express deeming clauses of the Charge using the address supplied by the defendants and therefore the order for sale dated 3.6.2025 stands; defendants consented or were bound to deliver vacant possession under the Charge so reliefs seeking to prevent inspection or possession were not sustainable.
29 Jul 2025

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) SOON SIEW CHIN 2. ) HOW WENG HONG (SOON SIEW CHIN adalah tuan punya 1/2 hartanah dan kedua-duanya adalah Pentadbir Harta Pusaka bagi HOW PENG KOOI(Si Mati)

Citation

BA-24FC-783-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-783-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any cause to the contrary under s256 NLC; the registered charge is valid and indefeasible; service and Form 16D were proper; Plaintiff is entitled to an order for sale and costs.
25 Jul 2025

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 1. ) NG CHEE KAE 2. ) NG LOCK SENG

Citation

JA-24MFC-598-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24MFC-598-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied statutory prerequisites for the order for sale: Form 16D complied with s.254(1); no statutory requirement to include monthly payment breakdown or separate in personam demand to the chargor; the certificate of indebtedness was accepted absent any proof of manifest error by defendants; concurrent civil proceedings did not bar the in rem remedy; therefore there was no 'cause to the contrary' and the application for order for sale was allowed.
10 Mar 2025

RHB BANK BERHAD MAT ISA BIN CHE DIR

Citation

BA-24FC-771-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-771-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the police report that the defendant admitted disclosing personal banking details after a call, which was the proximate cause of the scam; there was no evidence of bank negligence or complicity; the defendant failed to establish a 'cause to the contrary' under s256(3) and authority in Low Lee Lian; therefore the plaintiff's application for an order for sale was allowed and costs awarded.
27 Feb 2025

BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD LEE KIM TIONG @ LEE KIM YEW

Citation

BA-24FC-445-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-445-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the parties advanced conflicting but plausible positions on the existence of a substantial pledged fixed deposit said to extinguish the debt and the Plaintiff had no record of that fixed deposit, the court found a real question as to the existence of the debt on which the foreclosure was based and dismissed the Originating Summons with liberty to refile so the issue may be resolved appropriately.
9 Dec 2024

OSK CAPITAL SDN. BHD. BUMI RIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24FC-812-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-812-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff met the statutory preconditions for an order for sale under Sections 254–256 NLC and Order 83 Rules of Court 2012, produced proper account statements showing the indebtedness, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving a 'cause to the contrary' or that the charge or Form 16D was invalid; therefore the court was obliged to grant the order for sale by public auction and award costs to the plaintiff.
26 Nov 2024

OSK CAPITAL SDN. BHD. BUMI RIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24FC-814-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-814-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiff had a registered charge and had complied with the statutory preconditions in Sections 254–256 NLC and Order 83 Rules of Court 2012, produced compliant account statements and lawful interest calculations under the Moneylenders Act, and the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving any 'cause to the contrary'; accordingly the originating summons seeking an order for sale by public auction was granted.
9 Aug 2024

RHB BANK BERHAD ASCEND I-CORP SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24FC-1244-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-1244-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although Plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to an order for sale under s256 NLC, the Defendant demonstrated a legally cognizable 'cause to the contrary' by showing active attempts to reconcile accounts, engagement with AKPK for restructuring and the existence of pending appeal proceedings that could render immediate sale inequitable or nugatory; accordingly the court refused the order for sale and dismissed the originating summons without costs.
10 Oct 2023

AMBANK (M) BERHAD GLOBALCON HOLDING (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24FC-355-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-355-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to establish any statutory, common law or equitable cause to the contrary; the scheme was not sanctioned and no stay was obtained; Plaintiff complied with s256 NLC and Order 83 ROC 2012; therefore the court was obliged to grant the Order for Sale and costs to the Plaintiff.