Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 4(3) civil law act 1956

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2024

RESIDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD Raja Halinuddin Bin Raja Halid

Citation

M-02(NCvC)(W)-2003-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

M-02(NCvC)(W)-2003-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the 16.4.2009 Bailout and Temporary Take Over Agreement did not satisfy the requirements of an absolute assignment under s.4(3) CLA; read in its four corners the agreement created a profit‑sharing/security arrangement and conditional transfer (repayment/re‑transfer mechanics), not an unconditional transfer of PSK's rights. There was no express written notice to the Appellant amounting to assignment and the Respondent remained a stranger to the PSK‑Residenmas Agreement and thus lacked locus standi; consequently the High Court judgment was set aside and the Respondent's…
3 Oct 2022

Y.M. RAJA HALINUDDIN BIN RAJA HALID (No. K/P: 561029-08-5619) RESIDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 342867-A)

Citation

22NCVC-55-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCVC-55-10/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the 16.4.2009 instrument and surrounding correspondence created an absolute assignment satisfying Section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 (writing, absolute effect, and express notice to the Defendant); therefore the Plaintiff had locus to sue in his own name. The Defendant failed to prove reliable set-off quantum; on the evidence the Plaintiff proved damages of RM3,200,534.63. Judgment entered for the Plaintiff for that sum with interest and costs of RM30,000.
12 Aug 2022

CLARANGEL ESTUARY SDN BHD 1. ) ENERGISER PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

AA-A52NCvC-106-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

AA-A52NCvC-106-11/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The Deed of Assignment, considered together with the loan agreement and surrounding documents, was executed as security for the loan and not an absolute assignment within the meaning of Section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956; therefore the plaintiff retained locus to sue and the defendant's Order 14A application is dismissed.
10 Dec 2021

MODALKU VENTURES SDN BHD JIT HOE RESOURCES SDN BHD (dahulunya yang dikenali sebagai Jit Hoe Hardward Sdn Bhd)

Citation

WA-22NCC-132-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-132-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff proved a valid absolute assignment in writing with notice to the Defendant; the Defendant’s own admissions and conduct (acknowledgement of the Notice, payments to the Plaintiff, email confirmation) contradict allegations of fraud and show the assignment covered future debts; those allegations are bare, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and not triable, therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.
26 Jan 2021

Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co.] Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates]

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-(2584 & 2585)-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

2584 & 2585
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-(2584 & 2585)-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Company Resolution did not satisfy s.4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 because there was no evidence of express written notice of assignment to the debtors and on construction of the resolution it at most authorised payment to the director rather than transferring the beneficial interest; therefore Econwin retained locus standi and the bankruptcy notices were valid; appeals dismissed with costs.
21 Jan 2021

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor

Citation

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2584-08/2019 & KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2585-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2584-08/2019 & KEBANKRAPAN NO. WA-29NCC-2585-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Company Resolution did not effect an absolute assignment under section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 because there was no evidence of express written notice to the debtors and the Resolution only authorised payments to the director as repayment of advances; accordingly Econwin retained locus standi and the Bankruptcy Notices were valid.
23 Apr 2019

Sabah Development Bank Berhad Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

02(f)-27-04/2018(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-27-04/2018(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court held that the Bank's earlier valid absolute assignment under section 4(3) Civil Law Act 1956 transferred legal title to the SESB contract proceeds and that a third party's claim based on a constructive trust cannot defeat that prior legal assignment in the absence of a pre-existing equity or unconscionable/dishonest conduct by the assignee; therefore Petron had no proprietary interest in the proceeds and the Bank was entitled to them.

Malaysia Case Law

RESIDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD Raja Halinuddin Bin Raja Halid

Y.M. RAJA HALINUDDIN BIN RAJA HALID (No. K/P: 561029-08-5619) RESIDENMAS DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 342867-A)

CLARANGEL ESTUARY SDN BHD 1. ) ENERGISER PROPERTIES SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

MODALKU VENTURES SDN BHD JIT HOE RESOURCES SDN BHD (dahulunya yang dikenali sebagai Jit Hoe Hardward Sdn Bhd)

Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor [Messrs Wan Shahrizal, Hari & Co.] Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates]

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Sabarina binti Mohamed Sidek and Apparao a/l Apana for the Respondent/Judgment Creditor [Messrs Tengku Azlina, Rao, Low & Associates] PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Wan Shahrizal bin Wan Ladin for the Appellant/Judgment Debtor

Sabah Development Bank Berhad Petron Oil (M) Sdn Bhd