Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Stultification

Legal area

Court

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.
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.