1. ) GAVIN JAYAPAL (Sebuah Milikan Tunggal Yang Dimiliki Oleh Gavin Jay Anand a/l Jayapal) 2. ) NAOMI ANNE NIRMALA A/P DOMNIC SELVAM v 1. ) SERI MUTIARA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BHD

ba-28pw-101-05-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 July 2025 • BA-28PW-101-05/2024

Catchwords

Declaratory reliefs-debenture is void-liquidator ought to treat the applicant as a purchase under the scheme of arrangement under section 366 of the Companies Act 2016-settlement agreement and SPA form a valid and binding contract-consideration was provided in the form of legal service-2nd applicant is entitled to enforce the SPA-2nd applicant is the legal/beneficial owner of the unit by virtue of the SPA-debenture executed in favour of MTB is subordinate to their prior contractual right and should not override the SPA-equity supports their position-failing to recognise the 2nd applicant’s rights would result in unjust enrichment of the MTB and/or the Receivers-equity looks to substance over form and will enforce contracts where consideration is provided even if the formalities of registration are not observed-MTB argues that the 2nd applicant is a mere nominee and not a purchaser-no consideration-even if its is genuine, it is not registrable under the National Land Code-does not give rise to any equitable interest against third parties-debenture was executed and registered under section 352 CA 2016-thereby takes priority over any unregistered or equitable claims-applicant did not file any caveat over the land-Applicant’s rights are subordinate to those of a secured creditor acting in good faith-SPA is not supported by substantiated professional bills-the Contra Agreement is not properly executed, not signed and sealed-SPA is void for failure of consideration-Applicant has no beneficial interest over the property as there in no consideration-the claim is not supported by clear, contemporaneous and consistent documentation-the bills are questionable-the SPA and Settlement Agreement do not satisfy Section 64 and 66 of the CA 2016-documents are of no legal effect-2nd applicant cannot rely on equity to create and interest-the applicants’ unregistered and imperfect claim ranks subordinate-MTB’s registered debenture clearly prevails-no caveat was lodged-no steps to perfect the title-the 2nd applicant remained a mere nominee-the Liquidator and Receivers acted correctly in treating Unit 46-07 as part of the charged asset and excluding the Applicants from the scheme’s list of purchasers. Applicants ‘claim is devoid of legal or equitable merit-the debenture in favour of MTB is valid and takes priority.

Practice Areas

Declaratory reliefs-debenture is void-liquidator ought to treat the applicant as a purchase under the scheme of arrangement under section 366 of the Companies Act 2016-settlement agreement and SPA form a valid and binding contract-consideration was provided in the form of legal service-2nd applicant is entitled to enforce the SPA-2nd applicant is the legal/beneficial owner of the unit by virtue of the SPA-debenture executed in favour of MTB is subordinate to their prior contractual right and should not override the SPA-equity supports their position-failing to recognise the 2nd applicant’s rights would result in unjust enrichment of the MTB and/or the Receivers-equity looks to substance over form and will enforce contracts where consideration is provided even if the formalities of registration are not observed-MTB argues that the 2nd applicant is a mere nominee and not a purchaser-no consideration-even if its is genuine, it is not registrable under the National Land Code-does not give rise to any equitable interest against third parties-debenture was executed and registered under section 352 CA 2016-thereby takes priority over any unregistered or equitable claims-applicant did not file any caveat over the land-Applicant’s rights are subordinate to those of a secured creditor acting in good faith-SPA is not supported by substantiated professional bills-the Contra Agreement is not properly executed, not signed and sealed-SPA is void for failure of consideration-Applicant has no beneficial interest over the property as there in no consideration-the claim is not supported by clear, contemporaneous and consistent documentation-the bills are questionable-the SPA and Settlement Agreement do not satisfy Section 64 and 66 of the CA 2016-documents are of no legal effect-2nd applicant cannot rely on equity to create and interest-the applicants’ unregistered and imperfect claim ranks subordinate-MTB’s registered debenture clearly prevails-no caveat was lodged-no steps to perfect the title-the 2nd applicant remained a mere nominee-the Liquidator and Receivers acted correctly in treating Unit 46-07 as part of the charged asset and excluding the Applicants from the scheme’s list of purchasers. Applicants ‘claim is devoid of legal or equitable merit-the debenture in favour of MTB is valid and takes priority.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (4)

SERI MUTIARA DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Respondent Gavin Jayapal (sebuah Milikan Tunggal Yang Dimiliki Oleh Gavin Jay Anand a/l Jayapal) Applicant Malaysian Trustees Bhd Respondent Naomi Anne Nirmala a/p Domnic Selvam Applicant

Case Significance

1. ) GAVIN JAYAPAL (Sebuah Milikan Tunggal Yang Dimiliki Oleh Gavin Jay Anand... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated July 14, 2025 (citation: ba-28pw-101-05-2024). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of 1. ) GAVIN JAYAPAL (Sebuah Milikan Tunggal Yang Dimiliki Oleh Gavin Jay Anand...?

1. ) GAVIN JAYAPAL (Sebuah Milikan Tunggal Yang Dimiliki Oleh Gavin Jay Anand... is a High Court decision dated July 14, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.