n-02ncvcw-802-05-2024 — PANG VENG YAEN v LEE MEI KIM

Catchwords

Contract — Illegality — Moneylending transaction — Sale and purchase agreements alleged to be sham — Whether agreements intended to disguise loan transaction — Whether contravened Moneylenders Act 1951 — Unlicensed moneylending — Effect of illegality — Whether agreements enforceable — Moneylenders Act 1951, ss 2, 5, 10OA, 15, 17A Contract — Illegality — Moneylending transaction — Sale and purchase agreements declared unenforceable — Effect on third-party claims — Whether plaintiff had beneficial interest in property — Moneylenders Act 1951, s 15 Contract — Privity of contract — Plaintiff not a party to sale and purchase agreement — Whether plaintiff entitled to assert rights against subsequent purchaser Contract — Sham agreements — Test — Intention of parties — Circumstantial evidence — Whether sale and purchase agreements were façade to camouflage illegal moneylending — Whether court entitled to lift veil and examine substance of transaction Appeal — Powers of appellate court — Failure of trial judge to address pleaded issue — Whether appellate court may determine issue not decided by trial court — Whether omission constitutes appealable error Equity — Beneficial interest — Whether illegal and void transaction capable of conferring equitable or beneficial rights Evidence — Presumption — Moneylenders Act 1951 — Presumption of moneylending — Burden of proof — Failure to rebut statutory presumption — Effect

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli Delivered Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru Coram

Counsel (6)

Hakem Arabi & Associates Firm Nor Affiza & Co Firm Praveen Paniselvam Counsel Respondent Shobah Veera Counsel Appellant Sritharan C. Nadarajan Counsel Respondent Vishnu Varna Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

Lee Mei Kim Respondent Pang Veng Yaen Appellant

Summary

Pang Veng Yaen's appeal, heard together with Appeal 792, against an injunction restraining property transfers. Since the underlying SPAs were found to be sham moneylending transactions void under the Moneylenders Act 1951, the plaintiff had no beneficial rights. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

What was the outcome of PANG VENG YAEN v LEE MEI KIM?

<p>Pang Veng Yaen's appeal, heard together with Appeal 792, against an injunction restraining property transfers. Since the underlying SPAs were found...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Moneylenders Act 1951

s 2

Moneylenders Act 1951

s 15 s 17A s 2

Moneylending Act 1951

s 15

Cases Cited (8)

UK (4)

[1965] 2 QB 537 [1967] 2 QB 786 [1987] 3 All ER 1008 [1990] 1 AC 417

MY (4)

[2020] 6 MLJ 333 [2020] 6 MLJ 755 [2023] 10 CLJ 187 [2023] 6 MLJ 818