LEE EE FONG v ONG SEOW LEE

pa-11bncc-2-08-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 1 July 2024 • PA-11BNCC-2-08/2022 • 8 min read

2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Therefore, I made the following order:- [a] The Defendant’s appeal against the Magistrate’s Order dated 26.7.2022 is allowed; [b] The Defendant’s counterclaim in the Magistrate Court is dismissed; and [c] Cost of RM8,000.00 for the Defendant to be paid by the Plaintiff.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (pa-11bncc-2-08-2022). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

With utmost respect, the learned Magistrate has erred in facts and law when he failed to consider that the Defendant had paid the friendly loan of RM70,000.00 through 50 Litecoins to the Plaintiff’s Binance Account. This has indicated that 50 Litecoins being the repayment of the loan was accepted without any objections by the Plaintiff. I also find that the Learned Magistrate had erred in law and in fact when he considered that the 50 Litecoins was of no value. There is no evidence advance by the Plaintiff that the 50 Litecoins did not possess a market value. The magistrate failed to take cognizance that cryptocurrency is a digital asset and is universally accepted as a form of money and therefore it bears valuable consideration. In Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd & Anor [2019] 1 LNS 2194

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (7)

Kevin & Co. Firm Stephen & Co Firm Dato' Joshua Kevin Counsel Appellant Eng Khin Hock Counsel Respondent Leng Wie Mun Counsel Appellant Reuben Ong Counsel Appellant Sharla Shangkeri a/p Loganathan Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Lee Ee Fong Appellant Ong Seow Lee Respondent

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[2013] 4 MLJ 719 [2023] MLJU 2652

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-11bncc-2-08-2022)