FRANCIS HO SEE SIN v 1. ) TOH OOI PENG 2. ) HO SZE KEEN 3. ) HO WYE LUN

wa-12bncvc-55-06-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 18 November 2025 • WA-12BNCvC-55-06/2025 • 12 min read

7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

Indemnity – Whether mandatory for the word “indemnity” to be used – Court has to construe a document as a whole and not just be bound by the label affixed – Loan was paid out by 1st Respondent to a company associated with the Appellant upon the Appellant’s request – Whatsapp messages admissible as evidence to prove promise made by the Appellant – Intention of the Appellant in promising Indemnity clear and unequivocal – No error in decision of the Sessions Court judge to allow the 1st Respondent’s claim for indemnity – The Respondents’ 2nd claim for indemnity unsustainable – Cause of action against the Appellant’s son arose in Australia – Amount that the Appellant’s son is purportedly liable to pay the Respondents not properly ascertained – No law in Malaysia making fathers liable for the liabilities of their adult sons – Appeal to be allowed in part

Practice Areas

Indemnity

Judges (1)

Gan Techiong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Lui & Bhullar Firm Subramaniyan Firm Harneshpal Singh Bullar Counsel Respondent Ng Choong Meng Counsel Appellant Sophia Au Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

Francis Ho See Sin Appellant Ho Sze Keen Respondent Ho Wye Lun Respondent Toh Ooi Peng Respondent

Case Significance

FRANCIS HO SEE SIN v 1. ) TOH OOI PENG 2. ) HO SZE KEEN 3. ) HO WYE LUN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 18, 2025 (citation: wa-12bncvc-55-06-2025). <p>A family dispute where the appellant promised to indemnify his sister-in-law for a RM200,000 loan paid to his associated company, and a separate claim for RM76,494 allegedly owed by his son in Australia. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining judgment for the RM200,000 indemnity claim supported by WhatsApp messages, but dismissing the Australian claim as there was no law making fathers liable for their adult sons' debts.</p> The case was decided by Gan Techiong. Counsel appearing: Harneshpal Singh Bullar (counsel for respondent), Ng Choong Meng (counsel for appellant), Sophia Au (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A family dispute where the appellant promised to indemnify his sister-in-law for a RM200,000 loan paid to his associated company, and a separate claim for RM76,494 allegedly owed by his son in Australia. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining judgment for the RM200,000 indemnity claim supported by WhatsApp messages, but dismissing the Australian claim as there was no law making fathers liable for their adult sons' debts.

What was the outcome of FRANCIS HO SEE SIN v 1. ) TOH OOI PENG 2. ) HO SZE KEEN 3. ) HO WYE LUN?

<p>A family dispute where the appellant promised to indemnify his sister-in-law for a RM200,000 loan paid to his associated company, and a separate cl...

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Cases Cited (7)

UK (2)

[1958] 1 QB 513 [2002] 1 AC 251

MY (5)

[1979] 1 MLJ 131 [1994] 1 MLJ 405 [2007] 2 MLJ 746 [2011] 5 MLJ 1 [2020] 4 MLJ 42