Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Irrevocable power of attorney

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2024

WONG MAU@WONG MOI 1. ) LOW SWEE LIN 2. ) LOW SWEE YING

Citation

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-103-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 because the impugned transfers occurred in October 2003 and the suit was filed in March 2020 beyond the statutory period; Section 29 did not assist the plaintiff because she failed to prove discovery of fraud within the limitation period or reasonable diligence; Section 22 does not extend limitation exceptions to remedial constructive trust claims in this factual matrix; the plaintiff failed to prove forgery—contemporaneous documents and eyewitness (solicitor KH Lim) supported the defendants; documentary e…
11 Oct 2023

1. ) ONG SEOK FONG 2. ) ONG CHEE KIONG 3. ) ONG BAN LING 4. ) ONG TAR FOO 5. ) ONG SEOK KIAN 1. ) NG TONG LAI 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI JOHOR

Citation

JB-22NCvC-44-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCvC-44-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The impugned Irrevocable Power of Attorney was invalid because the statutory attestation requirements of Power of Attorney Act 1949 s3 were not satisfied (attesting solicitor did not explain contents; preparer lacked language competence and did not attest), the presumption under Evidence Act s85 was rebutted on the balance of probabilities, and the donor lacked the necessary lucidity on the execution date; consequently the transfer and subsequent registration founded on that POA are null and void and the property remains part of the deceased’s estate.
23 Jun 2022

NG OOI LEHAM

Citation

BL-24NCvC-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-24NCvC-10-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to establish a registrable/caveatable interest because prior proceedings determined Paragon Nova had no registered interest; the 2003 SPA therefore did not confer registrable title on the applicant, and the respondent, having purchased from a licensed developer and being registered, is a bona fide purchaser with indefeasible title under s.340 NLC; accordingly the court dismissed the extension application and awarded costs.
10 Nov 2021

1. ONG SEOK FONG 2. ONG CHEE KIONG 3. ONG BAN LING 4. ONG TAR FOO 5. ONG SEOK KIAN 1. NG TONG LAI 2. REGISTRAR OF LAND TITLES, JOHORE

Citation

JB-22NCVC-44-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-44-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 54 (affidavit affirmed by the defendant's solicitor) was inadmissible because it contained contentious and disputed factual averments outside the limited exception permitting solicitors to swear only as to formal or undisputed facts; having rejected Enclosure 54 the applicant's affidavit stood and the Court, balancing justice to all parties and recognizing the developments during trial, exercised its discretion to allow the late adducing of documents and the recall of specified witnesses to clarify material facts; no costs were ordered.
24 Oct 2021

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the full balance of RM116,000 was paid to Mariah & Co; consequently Defendant 2 did not become a bare trustee. The transfer to Defendant 1 is valid and Defendant 1 holds indefeasible title under s340(1) KTN. The IPA is academic given the transfer and the Plaintiff's bankruptcy; Plaintiff's declarations sought are refused. Defendant 2 must account for and repay the RM80,000 received from Plaintiff to the Director General of Insolvency.
24 Oct 2021

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on balance that the outstanding RM116,000 was paid to defendant 2 (through Mariah & Co); absent proof of full payment the vendor did not become a bare trustee and defendant 2 was entitled to transfer to defendant 1; the IPA was rendered academic by the subsequent transfer and plaintiff's bankruptcy vested any residual rights in the DGI; therefore defendant 1 holds indefeasible title under s340(1) KTN and plaintiff's declarations fail.
10 Jun 2020

MATHAVI A/P NARAYANASAMY 1. MURUGAN A/L KRISHNAN 2. ONG PAH KIAN @ KOH POH KIAN 3. NURLINY, PANNIR MANNAR & CO 4. MURUGAN A/L THIRUMALAI

Citation

WA-22NCVC-129-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-129-03/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff voluntarily executed the SPA, TD and IPA in the presence of the solicitor who explained the documents; there was no proven fraud, misrepresentation or agency linking the alleged collector to the 2nd/3rd defendants; the SPA is valid and enforceable and the stated consideration was paid/acknowledged; accordingly the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is dismissed and the 2nd defendant is entitled to vacant possession and removal of the caveat in part of its counterclaim.

Malaysia Case Law

WONG MAU@WONG MOI 1. ) LOW SWEE LIN 2. ) LOW SWEE YING

1. ) ONG SEOK FONG 2. ) ONG CHEE KIONG 3. ) ONG BAN LING 4. ) ONG TAR FOO 5. ) ONG SEOK KIAN 1. ) NG TONG LAI 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI JOHOR

NG OOI LEHAM

1. ONG SEOK FONG 2. ONG CHEE KIONG 3. ONG BAN LING 4. ONG TAR FOO 5. ONG SEOK KIAN 1. NG TONG LAI 2. REGISTRAR OF LAND TITLES, JOHORE

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

DA-22NCVC-53-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

MATHAVI A/P NARAYANASAMY 1. MURUGAN A/L KRISHNAN 2. ONG PAH KIAN @ KOH POH KIAN 3. NURLINY, PANNIR MANNAR & CO 4. MURUGAN A/L THIRUMALAI