Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
JOHNATHAN WONG FUTT PO – Appellant
Versus
KOH CHIN WEI & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-367-07/2022]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The Court found that the Trust Deed created for the purpose of tax evasion was a sham and unenforceable, and therefore, it could not be relied upon to support the Plaintiff's claim (!) (!) .
The property in the Lamborghini passed to the Plaintiff when the vehicle was in a deliverable state and delivery was taken, regardless of whether payment was made. This is supported by the applicable sale of goods law principles (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff failed to prove that he paid for the Lamborghini, as he did not adduce evidence of payment and provided incoherent explanations under cross-examination (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff admitted that the Trust Deed was created primarily to evade income tax, which renders the instrument unlawful and unenforceable (!) (!) .
The court upheld the Defendant's counterclaim, ordering the Plaintiff to pay RM1,050,000.00 for the Lamborghini, with interest, since the property had already passed to him (!) (!) .
The Plaintiff's claim for damages related to towing and damages to the vehicle was dismissed due to lack of proof (!) .
Cryptocurrency was recognized as valid consideration, but transactions involving it must be verifiable due to the inherent anonymity and difficulty in verification (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that agreements created for the purpose of evading laws or taxes are against public policy and are void (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court rejected the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the source of cryptocurrency and the existence of a business enterprise involving a Chinese client, due to lack of evidence and credibility issues (!) (!) .
Overall, the court granted the Plaintiff specific performance to retain the Lamborghini upon payment of the purchase price, and dismissed other claims and prayers that lacked evidentiary support or were contrary to law (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed breakdown or assistance with specific legal issues.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] A Lamborghini Huracan is an Italian sports car. It transpired during the trial of this action that cryptocurrency was purportedly used to pay the 2nd Defendant for the purchase of a Lamborghini Huracan as well as for a Bentley Continental and a Ferrari 488 GTB. The Plaintiff's testimony was that he and his partners decided to buy a 'super car' each after receiving a windfall of RM25million in "consultancy fees" paid to them in the form of cryptocurrency. Only the Lamborghini, bearing registration number TG18 ("the said Lamborghini") was the subject matter of this action.
[2] Had the Plaintiff been able to adduce evidence of having paid for the said Lamborghini, I would have had no hesitation to allow the Plaintiff's claim and to dismiss the Defendants' respective counterclaim - which was premised on the existence of a tripartite oral agreement for payment for the said Lamborghini to be made subsequently by the Plaintiff. However, during the trial, the Plaintiff adduced no evidence of payment for the said Lamborghini, and instead he gave an unsubstantiated and incoherent explanation.
[3] After careful evaluation of the evidence and submissions of both sides, based on the Sale of Goods Act 1957 , I decided to allow the Plaintiff's prayer against the 2nd Defendant for specific performance to transfer the said Lamborghini to his name, and to dismiss his claim for General Damages and Special Damages against both Defendants.
[4] As for the 2nd Defendant's Counter-claim, only its prayers for judgment of RM1,050,000.00 being the purchase price for the said Lamborghini and interest on the judgment sum were allowed.
[5] My reasons for allowing only part of the Plaintiff's claim and part of the 2nd Defendant's Counterclaim, and with each party to bear own costs, are as explained below.
The Plaintiff's Claim
[6] The Plaintiff's cause of action against the 2nd Defendant was based on a "Trust Deed" dated 9th November 2021 wherein the 2nd Defendant (MBest Trading Enterprise Sdn Bhd) had allegedly declared itself as trustee of the said Lamborghini for the Plaintiff as the beneficiary.
[7] The Plaintiff sought General Damages, Special Damages of RM170,000.00 and an order for specific performance to compel the 2nd Defendant to transfer ownership of the said Lamborghini to him.
[8] The said sum of RM170,000.00 was pleaded as Special Damages caused by the action of the 2nd Defendant in towing away the said Lamborghini on 6th May 2022 from his residence at TAR Villa, Jalan Genting Klang, Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur. The Plaintiff's evidence was that his bodyguard could not stop it from happening and police reports were lodged. Though the Plaintiff was able to regain possession of the car from the Police Station within a few hours of that incident, he pleaded that he suffered a loss of RM170,000.00 due to damage caused to the car.
The Defendants' Defence & Counterclaim
[9] The Defendants filed a Defence and Counterclaim against the Plaintiff. The Defendants' Defence narrated that the Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendants by one Tan Chee Hao (DW-2) who called himself "Marco Tan" as a potential customer looking for a Lamborghini.
[10] The Defendants further pleaded that the Plaintiff wanted to buy the said Lamborghini but lacked the money to pay the agreed price of RM1,050,000.00. According to them, the Plaintiff requested Marco Tan, who was then buying a Ferrari 488 GTB for himself, to advance payment of RM1,050,000.00 to pay for the said Lamborghini. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff promised to pay the said price to the 2nd Defendant by early 2022, whereupon the 2nd Defendant was to refund the money to Marco Tan. This arrangement was pleaded as "the oral tripartite agreement" in the Defendants' Defence.
[11] In their Counterclaim, the 2nd Defendant sought a declaration that the Trust Deed dated 9th November 2021 was invalid and void, an order for the Plaintiff to hand-over possession of the said Lamborghini to the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
