Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Void contract

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2023

Solid Invention Sdn Bhd 1. ) XXXX 2. ) LAI KIM LING 3. ) LAI KIM LOONG 4. ) LIM KUAN SEK 5. ) LAI MAH LEE 6. ) Lai Siew Kien [Identity Card No.: ]

Citation

BA-22NCVC-437-08/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-437-08/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Only the purchase price paid under the now-void SPA constitutes a benefit requiring restitution under s66 Contracts Act 1950; ex-gratia payments under an unaffected consent judgment, ancillary expenses and stamp duty claim against a non-party are not recoverable by restitution; therefore defendants must refund their respective portions of the purchase price to Plaintiff's solicitors within six months and the transfer(s) are to be reversed upon refund.
26 May 2022

AIM ADVANCE SDN. BHD. 1. ) Runningman Evolution Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Runningman Instant Delivery Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Lee Hao Ting 4. ) Lin Wai Jet 5. ) Andrew Chee Lamn Kwan 6. ) Tan Wei Yong

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-41-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-41-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the issues raised could not be resolved on affidavits alone under Order 14A/33 because material factual disputes exist (notably whether the agreements meet the statutory criteria in Section 4(a)–(d) of the Franchise Act 1998 and whether there was requisite continuous control). The applicant failed to show the four statutory elements were satisfied on the evidence before the court; therefore the matter must proceed to full trial with witness testimony. The interlocutory application/appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court decision was upheld.
8 Dec 2021

Perkasa Temenggong Sdn Bhd 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 3. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. ) LEE PAY SHIN 5. ) Chan Nyet Ching 6. ) Kamalam A/p Murugasa PENCELAH KAMALAM A/P MURUGASA

Citation

BA-22NCvC-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-33-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because both parties were under a common mistake that the Lot 541 Title was valid, the auction sale contract was void under s21 Contracts Act 1950; consequently under s66 the Bank, having received the purchase money, must restore it (RM230,000) to the plaintiff; the Bank’s third-party claim against the Director of Land and Mines for refund fails because the Bank’s true loss arises from loans disbursed on security of an invalid charge (not the refunded purchase price), and claims concerning the validity of charges must be pursued separately.
5 Jan 2021

SAJAD HUSSAIN CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-120-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-120-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that although an agreement existed and was performed (evidenced by procurement of buyers and payment), the appellant was not a registered estate agent as required by Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 s22C; therefore the object and consideration were unlawful under Contracts Act 1950 s24, the contract was void, and under s66 the appellant must restore the commission; summary judgment ordering repayment was therefore proper and the appeal was dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

Solid Invention Sdn Bhd 1. ) XXXX 2. ) LAI KIM LING 3. ) LAI KIM LOONG 4. ) LIM KUAN SEK 5. ) LAI MAH LEE 6. ) Lai Siew Kien [Identity Card No.: ]

AIM ADVANCE SDN. BHD. 1. ) Runningman Evolution Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Runningman Instant Delivery Sdn. Bhd. 3. ) Lee Hao Ting 4. ) Lin Wai Jet 5. ) Andrew Chee Lamn Kwan 6. ) Tan Wei Yong

Perkasa Temenggong Sdn Bhd 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH HULU LANGAT 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 3. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. ) LEE PAY SHIN 5. ) Chan Nyet Ching 6. ) Kamalam A/p Murugasa PENCELAH KAMALAM A/P MURUGASA

SAJAD HUSSAIN CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD