W
Wong Yen Feng
Person 1 case
Wong Yen Feng appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-655-10-2024
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.
MYHC 25 February 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Wong Yen Feng
Wong Yen Feng appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to February 2025. Wong Yen Feng appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Wong Yen Feng?
Wong Yen Feng appears in 1 published judgment from February 2025 to February 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
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"). 1 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. 1 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. 1 In light of the above, Enclosure 8 was therefore allowed with costs. 1