SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 2804

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
CHONG SING LENG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LIQUIDATOR ON BEHALF OF JUTA VILA (M) SDN BHD & ORS (ENCL 10) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: AA-24NCVC-131-03/2016]



Petitioner Advocates:Bridgette Lourdes ,Respondent Advocate: Mohamed Hamdan Yunus,Siti Mohd Tajuddin

Claims to property can be defeated by principles of limitation, laches, and acquiescence if the claimant fails to act in a timely manner upon becoming aware of competing interests.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency Act 1967 – Section 5 – Jurisdictional aspect and principles of res judicata – The Court confirmed that it retains jurisdiction as the Order of 8 August 2016 was deemed regular and valid, despite Public Bank's claims of irregularity due to non-service on the DGI. The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of this issue. (Paras 18-27)

(B) Limitation and acquiescence – Public Bank's claim regarding No 19-4 Parkview Apartment was held to be defeated by limitation, laches, and acquiescence, arising from its inaction and long delay in asserting its claims despite awareness of competing interests in the property. (Paras 11, 51)

Facts of the case: Public Bank argued for ownership of No 19-4 Parkview Apartment based on an assignment from Lee, while Chong and Mun asserted their rights as original purchasers. The Court examined the timeline of ownership and claims over the property, noting Public Bank’s delays and lack of action. (Paras 4-10, 12-26)

Findings of Court: The Court upheld the validity of the Order of 8 August 2016 and dismissed Public Bank's application to set it aside, citing limitations on its claims as an equitable charge or mortgage. (Paras 51-52)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the application, the validity of the previous order, and if Public Bank’s claims were barred by limitation. (Paras 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Public Bank’s claims to the property were extinguished by its own failure to act in a timely manner and not asserting its rights despite being informed of the competing claim by Chong and Mun. (Paras 51)

Result: Public Bank's application dismissed with costs awarded to the Plaintiffs and DGI.

JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo JC:

Introduction

[1] The Court had earlier on 8 June 2021 allowed Public Bank Bhd's ("Public Bank") application (Encl 10 prayers i and ii) to intervene in these proceedings commenced on 18 March 2016 and be added as the Third Defendant to this action with costs in the cause.

[2] The other part of Public Bank's application (Encl 10 prayer iii) to 40 have the Order of this Court made on 8 August 2016 set aside ("Setting Aside Application") was deferred for hearing on 16 July 2021 and later adjourned to 26 July 2021 on which date, this Court dismissed Public Bank's Setting Aside Application. Dissatisfied, by notice dated 24 August 2021, Public Bank appeals to the Court of Appeal and these are the grounds of judgment.

[3] The underlying dispute is whether it is the Plaintiffs, Chong Sing Leng ("Chong") and Mun Choi Peng (f) ("Mun") (and collectively referred to as "Chong and Mun") or Public Bank that has a right to a unit of property known as Unit No 19-4, Parkview Apartment, Persiaran Camelia, 39000 Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Pahang (hereinafter referred to "No 19-4 Parkview Apartment" or "the said Property" as the case may be).

Background Facts

[4] On 8 August 2016, His Lordship, Samsudin Hassan J. made an Order that Chong and Mun are the original purchasers and the joint beneficial owners of No 19-4 Parkview Apartment and that the First Defendant as the Liquidator of Juta Vila (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No 229400-W) (under winding up) ("Juta Vila") was to execute all necessary documents to 60 transfer the strata title to No 19-4 Parkview Apartment to Chong and Mun who was to pay the Liquidator costs of RM500.00 ("Order of 8 August 2016").

[5] The Liquidator is the Director-General of Insolvency ("DGI").

[6] The Second Defendant, Lee Wan Lung ("Lee") was adjudged a bankrupt on 14 January 2008 and his estate in bankruptcy is managed by the DGI.

[7] In other words, in this action, the DGI represented both the First and Second Defendants ie i) Juta Vila (M) Sdn Bhd (Company No 229400-W) (under winding up) and which company was the developer of the project housing No 19-4 Parkview Apartment as well as ii) Lee.

[8] It is this Order of 8 August 2016 that Public Bank was applying to set aside. It relied principally on the ground that the original purchaser of No 19-4 Parkview Apartment was Lee and who had absolutely assigned all his rights to the Said Property to it.

[9] It is now obvious that on the one hand Chong and Mun assert that so they are entitled to the Said Property whereas on the other hand, Public Bank asserts it is.

[10] In this action, the DGI had aligned himself with the position taken by Chong and Mun and from the narration of events hereunder, this will be made clear besides the fact that the DGI had opposed the application by Public Bank to intervene in this action.

Summary Of Findings

[11] Taking Public Bank's case at its highest that it has an interest in No 19-4 Parkview Apartment, on the materials before the Court, it was clear that its claim pegged on the assignment it asserted it has, was in the nature of a security for a loan and by reason of its own sheer indolence, its claim was defeated by limitation, laches and acquiescence.

Contrasting Chronology Of Events

[12] From the exchanges of affidavits (Encl 2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 35 and 36), the following contrasting chronology of events can be pieced together:

12.1 Chong and Mun's version

i) 22 June 1999 - Chong and Mun entered into a sale and purchase agreement for No 19-4 Parkview Apartment with Juta Vila for RM165,000.00 (Encl 2 para 2) and had earlier paid RM16,800.00 as a deposit;

ii) 24 June 1999 - Chong and Mun secured a loan of RM132,000.00 from Malayan Banking Berhad ("Maybank");

iii) 10 August 1999 - Chong and Mun entered into a loan agreement called a Facility Agreement with Maybank;

iv) 10 August 1999 - As a term of the Facility Agreement, Chong and Mun executed a Deed of Assignment assigning to Maybank, the said Property described as Parcel No 19, Type Ced


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top