1. ) WONG YEN FENG 2. ) GREEN BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 3. ) OMNI CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 4. ) TEOH KHAI SIN v 1. ) GLOBAL BUILT SDN BHD 2. ) CHUNG KEEN MEAN 3. ) RABBITS 63 SDN. BHD. 4. ) XMG (M) SDN. BHD. 5. ) MAGNUM SYNERGIES SDN. BHD. 6. ) SENJANEKA PROPERTIES (PJS) SDN. BHD. 7. ) MK OCTOPUS SDN. BHD.
Catchwords
By way of Enclosure 8, the defendants sought an order to strike out the plaintiffs' Writ of Summons dated 22.10.2024 and Amended Statement of Claim dated 13.12.2024 in accordance with Order 18 rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("RC 2012"). The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that they had imposed the purported interest on an illegal money lending contract. Therefore, the defendants argued that since the plaintiffs alleged they entered into an illegal moneylending contract, the defendants argued that courts have consistently refused to enforce rights under illegal contracts. On the part of the plaintiffs, they admitted that they were indeed claiming for the refund of an excessively imposed illegal interest by the defendants. In this regard, the court found that it would be considered to be participating or legitimising an illegal contract if it continued to hear and determine the case during a full trial since these facts had been established at that point. There can be no legitimisation of illegal contracts by this court. It was a strict court policy to deter illegal agreements of this nature. Therefore, this was a plainly obvious case warranting the striking out of the plaintiffs' claim. In light of the above, Enclosure 8 was therefore allowed with costs.
Practice Areas
By way of Enclosure 8, the defendants sought an order to strike out the plaintiffs' Writ of Summons dated 22.10.2024 and Amended Statement of Claim dated 13.12.2024 in accordance with Order 18 rule 19(1) (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("RC 2012"). The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs alleged that they had imposed the purported interest on an illegal money lending contract. Therefore, the defendants argued that since the plaintiffs alleged they entered into an illegal moneylending contract, the defendants argued that courts have consistently refused to enforce rights under illegal contracts. On the part of the plaintiffs, they admitted that they were indeed claiming for the refund of an excessively imposed illegal interest by the defendants. In this regard, the court found that it would be considered to be participating or legitimising an illegal contract if it continued to hear and determine the case during a full trial since these facts had been established at that point. There can be no legitimisation of illegal contracts by this court. It was a strict court policy to deter illegal agreements of this nature. Therefore, this was a plainly obvious case warranting the striking out of the plaintiffs' claim. In light of the above, Enclosure 8 was therefore allowed with costs.
Parties (11)
GLOBAL BUILT Sdn Bhd Defendant GREEN BUILT CONSTRUCTION Sdn Bhd Plaintiff MAGNUM SYNERGIES Sdn Bhd Defendant MK OCTOPUS Sdn Bhd Defendant OMNI CONSTRUCTION Sdn Bhd Plaintiff RABBITS 63 Sdn Bhd Defendant SENJANEKA PROPERTIES Sdn Bhd Defendant XMG Sdn Bhd Defendant Chung Keen Mean Defendant Teoh Khai Sin Plaintiff Wong Yen Feng Plaintiff
Case Significance
1. ) WONG YEN FENG 2. ) GREEN BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 3. ) OMNI CONSTRUC... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated February 25, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-655-10-2024). The case was decided by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan.
Key issues: In light of the above, Enclosure 8 was therefore allowed with costs..
What was the outcome of 1. ) WONG YEN FENG 2. ) GREEN BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 3. ) OMNI CONSTRUC...?
1. ) WONG YEN FENG 2. ) GREEN BUILT CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD. 3. ) OMNI CONSTRUC... is a High Court decision dated February 25, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah bin Raja Mohzan. See the full judgment for details.