Judgment after Full-Trial
3 cases · July 2025 to July 2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Recovering of Deposit sum paid against a party who was never bound by contract — Deposit Sum was not disputed paid directly to the glove manufacturer’s bank account on the instruction of the contracting supplier. Who were the contracting parties to the contract of sale, whether there is a contractual relationship between parties and the corresponding legal obligation to refund the deposit & who owes a duty of care. No evidence to show that Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with the manufacturer — all matters dealing with the orders made by the supplier for the Plaintiff regardless the payment directly been made to the manufacturer — Plaintiff’s claim for cause of action has no merits — neither a trust relationship nor was there a fiduciary relationship created in the circumstances — no duty of care by the manufacturer to the buyer — no evidence to show that the manufacturer had received more that what it was entitled — no unjust enrichment enjoyed by the manufacturer — Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs. 1 Disputes over delivery of the gold purchased under the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement — Whether Plaintiffs were a contracting party to the contract of sale — Documentary evidence and the Defendants’ conduct show that the Plaintiffs were never parties to the Gold SPA — no evidence in support of Defendant’s contention — the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants — An adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1950 is drawn upon failure to call the witness whom present at the “16.1.2023 Meeting“ to testify — No obligation on the Plaintiff to deliver any gold at all for the Defendants’ contract for the purchase of gold with the Distributor only — The balance of golds taken from the Plaintiffs was wrongful and amounted to a conversion of the same by the Defendants resulting in loss to the Plaintiffs. Exemplary damages have been awarded. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed. 1 Recovery of an outstanding loan by a registered and licensed moneylender — Whether the agreement is valid and enforceable under Moneylenders Acts 1951 — Whether the Plaintiff had charged interest above the permitted rate of 18% per annum (1.5% per month) under Sec 17A(1) of the MLA — the express term of the loan agreement was governed by Oral Agreements — the Court ruled that the imposition of interest exceed the maximum interest per annum permitted — the agreement were void and unenforceable being in contravention of section 17A(1) of the MLA — Whether section 27A of the MLA prohibiting the employment of an agent by a moneylender has been contravened — Appointment of agent procuring the agreement by way of receiving directly or indirectly valuable consideration rendering the loan agreement void and unenforceable against the Defendant — Both Plaintiff and Defendant’s claim were then dismissed. 1
Recovering of Deposit sum paid against a party who was never bound by contract — Deposit Sum was not disputed paid directly to the glove manufacturer’s bank account on the instruction of the contracting supplier. Who were the contracting parties to the contract of sale, whether there is a contractual relationship between parties and the corresponding legal obligation to refund the deposit & who owes a duty of care. No evidence to show that Plaintiff had a contractual relationship with the manufacturer — all matters dealing with the orders made by the supplier for the Plaintiff regardless the payment directly been made to the manufacturer — Plaintiff’s claim for cause of action has no merits — neither a trust relationship nor was there a fiduciary relationship created in the circumstances — no duty of care by the manufacturer to the buyer — no evidence to show that the manufacturer had received more that what it was entitled — no unjust enrichment enjoyed by the manufacturer — Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs. 1 case
Disputes over delivery of the gold purchased under the Gold Sale and Purchase Agreement — Whether Plaintiffs were a contracting party to the contract of sale — Documentary evidence and the Defendants’ conduct show that the Plaintiffs were never parties to the Gold SPA — no evidence in support of Defendant’s contention — the evidential burden shifts to the Defendants — An adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1950 is drawn upon failure to call the witness whom present at the “16.1.2023 Meeting“ to testify — No obligation on the Plaintiff to deliver any gold at all for the Defendants’ contract for the purchase of gold with the Distributor only — The balance of golds taken from the Plaintiffs was wrongful and amounted to a conversion of the same by the Defendants resulting in loss to the Plaintiffs. Exemplary damages have been awarded. Plaintiff’s claim is allowed. 1 case
Recovery of an outstanding loan by a registered and licensed moneylender — Whether the agreement is valid and enforceable under Moneylenders Acts 1951 — Whether the Plaintiff had charged interest above the permitted rate of 18% per annum (1.5% per month) under Sec 17A(1) of the MLA — the express term of the loan agreement was governed by Oral Agreements — the Court ruled that the imposition of interest exceed the maximum interest per annum permitted — the agreement were void and unenforceable being in contravention of section 17A(1) of the MLA — Whether section 27A of the MLA prohibiting the employment of an agent by a moneylender has been contravened — Appointment of agent procuring the agreement by way of receiving directly or indirectly valuable consideration rendering the loan agreement void and unenforceable against the Defendant — Both Plaintiff and Defendant’s claim were then dismissed. 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Cases
wa-22ncc-74-02-2023
LYFEMED MEDICARE (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) PROFESSIONAL LATEX SDN BHD 2. ) XALI PTE LTD 3. ) SENDOR SDN BHD 4. ) TANG KUM HOE
23 July 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-914-12-2023
1. ) WANA GOLD 2. ) FATHIN SYAZWANI BINTI MOHAMAD ZAKRI v 1. ) QALAM GOLD JEWELLERY (M) SDN BHD 2. ) QALAM GOLD JEWELLERY 3. ) MOHD ROZI BIN IBRAHIM
22 July 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-906-12-2023
FINNEX CAPITAL SDN. BHD. v PUSAT DIALISIS NUR KASIH SDN. BHD.
7 July 2025
MYHC