JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE

wa-22ncc-698-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 7 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-698-09/2023

Catchwords

Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-22- Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum is to be repaid upon early cancellation- I hold the Investment Agreement is not a moneylending transaction-The Investment Agreement states clearly that it’s an Investment Agreement whereby the investor is entitled to a fixed return per year for 5 years and repayment of his Investment Sum at the end of the 5-year period or to be repaid upon early cancellation-“[34] Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions.”-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-10 OA. Where in any proceedings against any person, it is alleged that such person is a moneylender, the proof of a single loan at interest made by such person shall raise a presumption that such person is carrying on the business of moneylending, until the contrary is proved.

Practice Areas

Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with the investment. But this acknowledgment of risk does not imply that the Investment Target Return or repayment of the Invested Sum are contingent upon the financial performance of Ace Credit-22- Section 4.03 of the Investment Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.04 of the Investment Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum is to be repaid upon early cancellation- I hold the Investment Agreement is not a moneylending transaction-The Investment Agreement states clearly that it’s an Investment Agreement whereby the investor is entitled to a fixed return per year for 5 years and repayment of his Investment Sum at the end of the 5-year period or to be repaid upon early cancellation-“34 Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a document, it looks at the language. If the language is clear and unambiguous and applies accurately to existing facts, it shall accept the ordinary meaning; for the duty of the court is not to delve into intricacies of the human mind to disclose one’s undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of the words used by him, that is to say his expressed intentions.”-presumption under section 10 OA of the MA 1951-10 OA. Where in any proceedings against any person, it is alleged that such person is a moneylender, the proof of a single loan at interest made by such person shall raise a presumption that such person is carrying on the business of moneylending, until the contrary is proved.

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (4)

ACE CREDIT Sdn Bhd Defendant JR JATIDIRI Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Chang Ai Nee Defendant Choong Chee Meng Defendant

Case Significance

JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 7, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-698-09-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) ...?

JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) ... is a High Court decision dated October 7, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.