1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED 2. ) THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

02f-40-07-2023w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 29 July 2024 • 02(f)-40-07/2023(W)

Catchwords

failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act

Practice Areas

failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act

Judges (3)

Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal Coram Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Coram Nallini Pathmanathan Delivered

Counsel (11)

Firoz Julian Firm Pierre Chuah & Associates Firm Chuar Kia Lin Counsel Appellant Dato' Bastian Vendargon Counsel Respondent Dato' Cyrus Das Counsel Respondent Gene Vendargon Counsel Respondent Mervyn Lai Counsel Appellant Nur Ainnabila Rosdi Counsel Respondent Saritha Devi Kirupalani Counsel Respondent Tan Sri Tommy Thomas Counsel Appellant Tey Jun Ren Counsel Appellant

Parties (4)

DETIK RIA Sdn Bhd Appellant PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED Respondent THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din Appellant

Case Significance

1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) P... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated July 29, 2024 (citation: 02f-40-07-2023w). <p>Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance Malaysia, where the key issue was whether failure to obtain the Minister of Finance's consent under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 rendered the agreement illegal and void. The Federal Court held that the agreement was not void ab initio but became unenforceable when performed without the required ministerial consent, and ordered restitution u The panel comprised Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Nallini Pathmanathan, with Nallini Pathmanathan delivering the judgment.

Summary

Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance Malaysia, where the key issue was whether failure to obtain the Minister of Finance's consent under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 rendered the agreement illegal and void. The Federal Court held that the agreement was not void ab initio but became unenforceable when performed without the required ministerial consent, and ordered restitution under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. The case was remitted to the High Court to determine the quantum of benefits to be restored.

What was the outcome of 1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) P...?

<p>Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance ...