C
Chang Ai Nee
Person 6 cases
About Chang Ai Nee
Chang Ai Nee appears as a party in 6 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to October 2025. Chang Ai Nee appeared as defendant in 5 cases, respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (6).
How many court cases involve Chang Ai Nee?
Chang Ai Nee appears in 6 published judgments from January 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as defendant (5 cases).
Practice Areas
Contract 4 O.14, r1 1 Section 4.03 of the Agreement merely states that the plaintiff agrees and understands the financial risks associated with 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-Section 4.03 of the Agreement does not override sections 2.01 and 2.03 of the Agreement which expressly provide that the Investment Target Return are to be paid annually and the Invested Sum are to be repaid in full at the end of the investment period-Investment Agreement-moneylending whereby a lender lends money with interest charged-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 1951-38. The case before me is not a loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not lend monies to Ace Credit. In fact, it is Ace Credit which is the licensed moneylender as stated and represented in the Agreement at Recital A. And at Recital B it is stated that Ace Credit agreed on the plaintiffs investing in Ace Credit- 1 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. 1 1. The Defendant applied to this Court to convert the Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff into a Writ by virtue of Order 28 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“the Rules”). 1 2. Order 28 rule 8 of the Rules provides as follows: 1 8. Continuation of proceedings as if cause or matter begun by writ (O. 28 r. 8) 1 (1) Where, in the case of a cause or matter begun by originating summons, it appears to the Court at any stage of the proceedings that the proceedings should for any reason be continued as if the cause or matter had been begun by writ, it may order the proceedings to continue as if the cause or matter had been so begun and may, in particular, order that pleadings shall be delivered or that any affidavits shall stand as pleadings, with or without liberty to any of the parties to add thereto or to apply for particulars thereof. 1
Defendant (5)
wa-22ncc-698-09-2023 MYHC
JR JATIDIRI SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
7 October 2025
wa-22ncc-696-09-2023 MYHC
KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
15 July 2025
wa-22ncc-547-08-2023 MYHC
MOHD FARID BIN MOHAMED SANGIDO v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN BHD 2. ) CHANG AI NEE 3. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG
17 February 2025
wa-22ncc-587-08-2023 MYHC
DATIN SRI AIDARAHMI BINTI ISMAIL v 1. ) ACE CREDIT (M) SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG 3. ) CHANG AI NEE
17 February 2025
wa-22ncc-293-05-2024 MYHC
MUHAMMAD SULHAN BIN GHAZALI v 1. ) CHANG AI NEE 2. ) CHOONG CHEE MENG
5 January 2025