Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Champerty and contingency fees

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2024

MRCB ENGINEERING SDN BHD 1. ) MAC CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT SDN BHD 2. ) KUDDUS CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-221-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-221-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved that D1 knew of D2's winding‑up, failed to disclose that material fact to the adjudicator and plaintiff, acted in concert with D2 to pursue and release the adjudication only after the winding‑up order was revoked, and thus conspired to defraud/injure the plaintiff; accordingly plaintiff's claim succeeds and orders follow.
29 May 2022

DIANA ANN SEAH JOUSEPH A/L JOHNSON

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-1457-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-1457-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court allowed Defendant's striking out application: supporting affidavit was admitted (filed same day and no prejudice), but the writ and statement of claim were irregular because plaintiff failed to endorse occupation as required; critically the retainer clause (35% of award) was champertous/contingent and therefore unlawful and void under s112(1)(b) Legal Profession Act 1976 and ss24/25 Contracts Act 1950, rendering the claim unsustainable. On alternative reasoning the court accepted Plaintiff's contention that any recoverable claim only accrued on the insurer payment in 2018, but primary b…