Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Money had and received

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2025

LIM TING CHAI 1. ) GENNEVA MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) AHMAD KHAIRUDDIN BIN ILIAS 3. ) PHILIP LIM JIT MENG 4. ) TAN LIANG KEAT

Citation

WA-22NCC-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-141-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 2014 proceedings were void ab initio for lack of prosecutorial consent under AMLA and therefore did not bar relitigation; plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims were not statute-barred because fraudulent breaches of constructive trust fall within Limitation Act s22(1) and alternative claims were saved by s29 until discovery on conviction; evidence including final criminal findings and company operational documents proved fraudulent representations, knowledge or recklessness by directors, a constructive trust arose over the monies/gold, and the corporate veil could be pierced to hold directors per…
27 Nov 2024

Hong Leong Assurance Bhd Phun Yoon Hoon

Citation

WA-A72NCC-29549-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCC-29549-08/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The Court held the payment was not a payment 'by mistake' within s.73 because the Plaintiff intended the recipient and the amount paid matched the Plaintiff’s communicated settlement; restitution under money had and received was not available because the Defendant received the payment in good faith without knowledge of any taint and the settlement was a discretionary goodwill offer forming a binding agreement once accepted; accordingly both the Plaintiff's claim for repayment and the Defendant's counterclaim for harassment were dismissed.
28 Oct 2024

JINGSHI HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD TETUAN PATRICK YEOH & COMPANY (sebuah firma)

Citation

WA-22NCC-277-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-277-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the RM1,000,000 was a non-refundable deposit forming part of a concluded agreement to purchase 19,500,000 FCG shares for RM10,000,000; contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and the 30.9.2021 letter corroborated the defendant's account and the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral undertaking or entitlement to restitution, therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the deposit forfeited.
26 Sept 2024

RHB Investment Bank Berhad 1. ) Chan Yew Mun 2. ) Grace Loo Shuk Yee

Citation

WA-22NCvC-168-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-168-03/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the 1st Defendant misappropriated customer funds and deposited them into accounts held/used by the 2nd Defendant; the 2nd Defendant received and benefited from those funds and had constructive knowledge (and acted dishonestly in the circumstances), making it unconscionable for her to retain the funds; accordingly Plaintiff's claim for RM2,640,000 succeeded under money had and received, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance, with costs awarded to Plaintiff.
18 Jan 2024

Mulpha Ventures Sdn Bhd 1. ) Mula Holdings Sdn Bhd 2. ) Bestari Sepang Sdn Bhd 3. ) Spanstead Sdn Bhd 4. ) Seri Ehsan (Sepang) Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-22NCC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-3-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Breach of s16 Moneylenders Act 1951 rendered the three loan agreements unenforceable and therefore void, but the transactions were not illegal; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to restitution under s66 Contracts Act 1950 and alternatively to recover on the basis of money had and received/unjust enrichment; limitation defence was unavailable because a void contract does not generate enforceable rights upon which limitation can operate; outgoings incurred remained recoverable.
12 Apr 2023

GOLDEN WHEEL CREDIT SDN BHD DATO' SIAH TEONG DIN

Citation

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim for restitution was dismissed because the Plaintiff had contravened material provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1951 (including charging interest above the statutory cap for secured loans, use of incorrect forms, unlawful deduction of funds, unstamped documents and failure to provide statements), and permitting recovery of the principal would stultify the statutory scheme and public policy embodied in the Moneylenders Act 1951; where a contract is void ab initio under statute, restitution under ss66/71 is not available.
31 Oct 2022

RHB Bank Berhad Richland Leisure Group Sdn. Bhd. PENCELAH FUJIKURA (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-607-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-607-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although RHB proved the payments were made by mistake based on forged documents, Richland successfully established the defence of change of position in good faith by allocating non‑negotiable gaming chips to Ng and accounting to Genting, so restitution for RM1,031,000 was not required.
12 Aug 2022

NEELAKANDAN SWAMINATHAN SIVANATHAN A/L K SENATHI RAJAH

Citation

WA-12ANCC-74-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-74-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim against the 1st Defendant was struck out because reliance on lifting the corporate veil did not constitute a pleaded cause of action and the Statement of Claim failed to plead facts showing special circumstances to pierce the veil or a pleaded cause of action in money had and received; therefore the claim was plainly unsustainable and properly struck out under Order 18 Rule 19.
10 Nov 2021

1. ) SRC INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 2. ) GANDINGAN MENTARI SDN BHD 3. ) JENDELA PINGGIRAN SDN BHD PERTUBUHAN KEBANGSAAN MELAYU BERSATU (UMNO) (Via its Chairman, YB Dato’ Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Bin Hamidi, its Secretary General, YB Datuk Seri Hj Ah

Citation

WA-22NCVC-344-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-344-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant's strike out application was dismissed because the statement of claim discloses arguable causes of action (knowing receipt and money had and received), limitation and knowledge issues are matters requiring full trial since discoverability in 2019 is plausibly pleaded, pleadings include necessary particulars and are amendable, and naming office-bearers rather than a public officer was not fatal where identity was clear; accordingly amendment substituting the public officer was allowed and striking out was inappropriate.
25 Jun 2021

GOLDEN WHEEL CREDIT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 27247-H) DATO' SIAH TEONG DIN (NRIC NO.: 620926106325)

Citation

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-596-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court struck out the plaintiff's action. Where moneylending agreements are void ab initio by reason of statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951, section 66 Contracts Act 1950 does not afford restitution to the moneylender and the court will refuse restitution if allowing it would stultify the statutory policy; the Patel v Mirza discretionary test for common law illegality does not apply to statutory illegality in this context.