Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repossession

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2025

PAUL RAJ A/L DAVIS MERCEDES-BENZ SERVICES MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12ANCC-25-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-25-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Session Court: the Respondent complied with the Hire Purchase Act (s4(1)(a) and s5(1)), the appellant failed to demonstrate arguable triable issues or bona fide defence, and the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; therefore summary judgment and striking out were correctly ordered and the appeal is dismissed with costs RM5000.
23 Dec 2024

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) QUANTUM PETROLEUM (M) SDN BHD 2. ) MANIMARAN A/L PERIASAMY

Citation

BL-A52NCC-43-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A52NCC-43-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that s16(1A) requires comparison of instalments actually paid against the statutory phrase 'total cash price of the goods'; the correct calculation excluded deposit and hire-purchase extras claimed by defendant, producing 59.63% (RM161,012.00/RM270,000.00) which is below 75%, therefore s16(1A) did not prohibit repossession and no court order was required; repossession and the statutory notices were valid.
25 Oct 2024

1. ) PRITAM SINGH AGENCY SDN BHD 2. ) GULSHANJIT KAUR A/P PRITAM SINGH 3. ) JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU BRAR MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

AA-22NCvC-102-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-102-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

No bona fide issue was established because plaintiffs failed to act in good faith and did not avail themselves of the remedy offered by the defendant; the plaintiffs' losses are primarily financial and compensable by damages; the balance of convenience favours the defendant because continued use of vehicles without payment causes greater injustice and repossession is lawful; therefore the interlocutory injunction is refused.
21 Nov 2023

Biddora Musli Alonto 1. ) Lee Teck Tian 2. ) Ambank (M) Berhad

Citation

WA-A72-91-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72-91-05/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application by Defendant 2 succeeded because the court found the cause of action arose in Sabah (contract executed in Sabah, vehicle lost in Sabah, witnesses and investigations in Sabah), the claim is time-barred under Article 38 of the Limitation Ordinance (Sabah) 1952 (three-year limitation from 7.12.2017), and filing in Kuala Lumpur amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of process; accordingly the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 10.5.2023 were struck out under Order 18 Rule 19 KKM 2012 and costs of RM1,000 awarded to Defendant 2.
2 Mar 2022

BMW CREDIT (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD 1. ) LEARSIM SDN BHD 2. ) SAYYID SHAH BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-12ANCC-4-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-4-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the defendants breached express obligations in the hire purchase agreement by allowing the vehicle to be sold/transfered and failed to dispute the outstanding amount, therefore they raised no triable issue; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and the appeal was allowed.
27 Jan 2022

Malayan Banking Berhad Khor Siang Ping

Citation

BA-24FC-214-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24FC-214-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff proved the loan, the defendant's default and the outstanding balance and established contractual and legal entitlement to sell the mortgaged property by public auction; payments and financing arrangements relied on were authorised by the loan agreement; the defendant failed to raise a valid defense, therefore the originating summons for sale and ancillary orders were allowed.
23 Feb 2021

1. ) Balan a/l S. Arumugam (No. K/P: 910429-08-6015) 2. ) S. Arumugam a/l Sithambaram (No. K/P: 671024-08-5043) TAN CHONG CAPITAL RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 676721-D)

Citation

AA-A74-330-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A74-330-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Repossession was lawful because when deposit was excluded the instalments paid were 69.80% of the cash price (below 75%), the Fourth Schedule notice and Regulation 15 notice were validly served and remained effective while arrears remained unpaid, and the Fifth Schedule notice defect was corrected; therefore plaintiff failed to prove repossession unlawful and claim dismissed.
6 Jul 2020

YANG ZHONG CAPITAL SDN BHD FUJI XEROX ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-249-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-249-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the parties were bound by the clear contractual terms which entitled the respondent to recover arrears and unaccrued rentals on termination; the appellant failed to raise particularized triable issues and raised new unpleaded grounds late; past consideration is valid under s2(d) Contracts Act 1950, therefore summary judgment was properly entered and should stand.
9 Dec 2019

1. Jefi Aquatech Resources Sdn Bhd (Company No: 904389-V) 2. Tan Beng Chye (NRIC No. 670124-07-5323) 3. Tan Beng Jeen (NRIC No. 690330-07-5541) RHB Bank Berhad (6171-M)

Citation

PA-11ANCC-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-11ANCC-1-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants demonstrated genuine triable issues because clause 11.4 required a termination notice and repossession or attempted repossession before the hirer would be obliged to pay outstanding sums; additionally it was unclear whether the vehicle fell within the Hire-Purchase Act 1967, so summary judgment was inappropriate and must be set aside.
1 Jan 1900

LIS-TEC SDN. BHD. (N0. SYARIKAT: 281521-D) RHB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD (N0. SYARIKAT: 680329-V)

Citation

PA-22NCVC-159-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-159-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim was dismissed because the hire-purchase Agreements expressly vested the Defendant with unfettered discretion to sell repossessed machines and disclaimed any obligation to obtain market value; the Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant owed a duty of care, failed to prove repossession of 11th machine, had notice of subsequent auctions, produced no credible evidence of negligence or market value (no expert valuation), and thus failed to discharge the burden of proof; adverse inference was inappropriate.