Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan recovery

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2024

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) SD IMPEX SDN BHD 2. ) Mohd Abdul Karim Bin Abdullah (Nod 16.3.2026) 3. ) ABANG MUHAMMAD FAHKRIE BIN ABANG ARBIE 4. ) SD ASSOCIATES VENTURE SDN BHD (NOD 16.3.2026)

Citation

WA-22NCC-556-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-556-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by serving statement of claim, entering appearance and filing an affidavit with a Certificate of Indebtedness under contractual clauses making such certificate conclusive; defendants failed to particularize or prove manifest errors, did not show that certificate had to be pre-served, and raised implausible afterthoughts; therefore no triable issues existed and summary judgment was justified.
6 Jul 2023

Ko Siew Cheang Ong Keat Kong @ Lee Keat Kong

Citation

AA-B52-2-01/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-B52-2-01/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found contemporaneous documents (WeChat messages, transfer receipts, deposit slips), the Defendant's conduct and part payments amounted to an admission of indebtedness and that the monies advanced by the Plaintiff were a loan; the Defendant's account was a sham and unmeritorious, therefore RM109,000 was owing to the Plaintiff with interest and costs.
26 May 2023

1. ) Lim Seong Heng 2. ) Hew See Ling 1. ) Tan Pek Han 2. ) Ten Shay Tien PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Lim Seong Heng 2. ) DC2 Auto Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCC-467-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-467-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff (CC) advanced RM10,483,249 to the defendants (CC) for investment in buying and selling luxury vehicles; only RM5,108,478 was proved to have been repaid; the transaction was an investment/partnership profit-sharing arrangement and not a moneylending agreement under the Moneylenders Act 1951; accordingly the counterclaim was allowed for the unpaid balance with interest and costs.
9 Sept 2022

1. ) LITEGRID HOLDINGS LIMITED 2. ) LITEGRID NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 1. ) CAPITAL GUARANTEED SDN BHD 2. ) HWANG JYH YUAN

Citation

AA-22NCC-7-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCC-7-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contemporaneous documentary evidence established the USD400,000 was disbursed as an interest free loan; Plaintiffs discharged the legal burden and the Defendants failed to adducesufficient evidence to prove the asserted investment/superseding arrangement; accordingly the 1st Defendant is liable to repay USD400,000 and the 2nd Defendant breached fiduciary duties and is liable for general damages.
8 Nov 2021

Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad Kukup Ferry Terminal Sdn Bhd & 5 Lagi

Citation

WA-22NCC-711-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-711-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff was not bound by the JBHC consent judgment as a non‑party; the Letter of Changes was expressly conditional on execution of new security documentation and therefore did not effect discharge; the guarantee agreements unambiguously required a written discharge by the bank; no new guarantees were executed and no written discharge issued; accordingly defendants 3,4 and 6 remain liable under their guarantees and the plaintiff's recovery claim succeeds.
11 Aug 2020

1. ) IKHLAS AL DAIN SDN BHD 2. ) SUNGEI WANG PLAZA SDN BHD 3. ) DATO SERI' ABDUL AZIM BIN MOHD ZABIDI 4. ) TAN PENG KOON AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-45-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case under Order 14; defendants failed to demonstrate any bona fide triable issue or other reason for a trial because the facility agreements and guarantees are binding, the bank had contractual discretion to accept or reject settlement proposals, any disclosure was permitted by the charge upon event of default, and any alleged statutory or Shariah breaches do not defeat the plaintiff's claim for recovery which is distinct from separate complaints that must be pursued separately; therefore summary judgment was warranted for the plaintiff.

Malaysia Case Law

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) SD IMPEX SDN BHD 2. ) Mohd Abdul Karim Bin Abdullah (Nod 16.3.2026) 3. ) ABANG MUHAMMAD FAHKRIE BIN ABANG ARBIE 4. ) SD ASSOCIATES VENTURE SDN BHD (NOD 16.3.2026)

Ko Siew Cheang Ong Keat Kong @ Lee Keat Kong

1. ) Lim Seong Heng 2. ) Hew See Ling 1. ) Tan Pek Han 2. ) Ten Shay Tien PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Lim Seong Heng 2. ) DC2 Auto Sdn Bhd

1. ) LITEGRID HOLDINGS LIMITED 2. ) LITEGRID NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 1. ) CAPITAL GUARANTEED SDN BHD 2. ) HWANG JYH YUAN

Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad Kukup Ferry Terminal Sdn Bhd & 5 Lagi

1. ) IKHLAS AL DAIN SDN BHD 2. ) SUNGEI WANG PLAZA SDN BHD 3. ) DATO SERI' ABDUL AZIM BIN MOHD ZABIDI 4. ) TAN PENG KOON AMBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD