Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Charge/mortgage

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

1. ) Lee Chay Boon 2. ) Poh Kim Tong Sabah Development Bank Berhad

Citation

JA-22NCvC-146-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-146-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the plaintiffs proved payment in full and delivery of vacant possession before the charge was executed, the developer was a bare trustee with no beneficial or registrable interest; the bank took the charge directly from that vendor and, as an immediate chargee, cannot invoke the proviso to s340(3) NLC; therefore the Form 16A instrument is void/insufficient under s340(2)(b) NLC and its registration is defeasible and must be set aside.
20 Jan 2025

AFFIN BANK BERHAD 1. ) IHAA CAPITAL SDN. BHD. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai IHAA Holding Sdn. Bhd.) 2. ) LIM PHECK JOO 3. ) GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM 4. ) WAN NASIR BIN WAN MUSTAPHA PENCELAH EVERSHINE IMPEX SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-562-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-562-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was granted because the Defendants admitted execution of the loan and security documents, failed to challenge the authenticity of signatures or the Certificate of Indebtedness, did not provide evidence to support asserted defenses, and contractual notice and account provisions deemed the notices served and the indebtedness conclusive, leaving no triable issues.
2 Feb 2024

HARYATEY BINTI HANAPI SKF SOLUTION SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-348-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-348-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove fraud or that the loan agreement dated 25.9.2019 was void; the written secured loan agreement was valid and duly executed, funds of RM600,000 were disbursed to the plaintiff, plaintiff defaulted and remains liable for the outstanding sum (RM516,500); plaintiff's claims and originating summons were dismissed accordingly.
25 Sept 2023

Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 2. ) Aminah Binti Ahmad

Citation

J-02(NCvC)(W)-549-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

J-02(NCvC)(W)-549-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court affirmed the High Court: the SPAs were valid and the 1st Defendant holds Lots 97 and 716 on constructive trust for the deceased's estate; the 2nd Defendant was an immediate purchaser competing with the estate (not a protected 2nd‑layer purchaser under deferred indefeasibility) and its title is defeasible; the Bank, as chargee relying on the 2nd Defendant's title, failed to prove bona fides and adequate due diligence (no proof of payment, no valuation/site verification) and therefore its charges are defeasible; both appeals were dismissed and High Court judgment affirmed.
24 Apr 2022

GOLDEN ROCK SDN BHD MAYBAN FINANCE BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-79-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-79-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove that the Borrower's debt to the Defendant had been fully satisfied; the Liquidator's evidence established that amounts remained owing and the purported surplus was misconstrued; accordingly the originating summons to discharge the charge and set aside the order for sale was dismissed.
21 May 2021

GOMBAK IMPIANA SDN BHD SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-24MFC-30-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24MFC-30-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The charge was valid and enforceable despite the secured sum exceeding actual disbursements because the secured sum represented the total repayment/sale price under the facilities and disbursement was governed by the parties' Offer Letter; plaintiff lawfully withheld disbursement of the BIS facility due to unmet conditions; Form 16D and default were sufficiently established and defendant failed to demonstrate lawful cause to the contrary and was estopped from raising these issues at this stage, entitling the plaintiff to an order for sale.
2 Feb 2021

MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN BHD & OTHER HKS REALTY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCVC-2050-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-2050-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs lacked locus standi (no leave obtained under Companies Act s471 for a company in liquidation to commence proceedings) and because prior appellate rulings upheld the validity of the agreements such that the plaintiffs’ challenge was baseless; consequently the intervener lawfully retained the right to effectuate the sale and the plaintiffs’ application constituted an abuse of process.
7 Sept 2020

MUSTAPHA BIN ABD KADIR OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

JA-38-1601-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-38-1601-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant failed to prove deliberate or wilful bad faith by the plaintiff, failed to adduce its own valuation to rebut the plaintiff's valuation, and the Registrar acted within her discretion in fixing the reserve price at MYR520000; the court, not the chargee, determines the reserve price and any negligence remedy is pursued post‑sale.