The court ruled that the transactions between the parties were business dealings, not friendly loans, due to lack of evidence supporting the claim.

JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] The individuals at the centre of this appeal were formerly bound by a strong friendship. As often occurs in such close relationships, lines between personal and business affairs became blurred. The once unbreakable bond between them abruptly shattered when one party initiated legal action in the Sessions Court, claiming repayment of funds purportedly lent to the other under the guise of a friendly loan. Not to be outmatched, the opposing party responded by filing a counterclaim against the initial claimant.

[2] The learned Sessions Court Judge allowed part of the Plaintiff's main claim but dismissed the Defendants' counterclaim.

[3] This is an appeal by the Appellants/Defendants against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge dated 17 November, 2023 that allowed part of the Respondent/Plaintiff's main claim. The Appellants/Defendants are not appealing against the decision that dismissed their counterclaim. Nor is the Respondent/Plaintiff cross- appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge.

The Core Issue

[4] The key issue in this appeal is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had erred in law and/or in fact in arriving at her decision, warranting appellate intervention.

The Parties And The Background Facts In The Sessions Court

[5] The Respondent/Plaintiff, Khor Boon Hong, was a used car salesman with Syarikat LX Mode Sdn Bhd as well as a car insurance agent at the relevant period.

[6] The First Appellant/Defendant is one Ooi Tse Bing. He is one of the two directors in the Second Appellant/Defendant company.

[7] The Second Appellant/Defendant, LD Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd, is a private limited company. It is a company that manufactures and produces plastic goods, where the company's board of directors consists of the First Appellant/Defendant and another person.

[8] The Respondent/Plaintiff became acquainted with the First Appellant/Defendant and formed a friendship sometime in 2012. The Respondent had sold a car to the First Appellant/Defendant.

[9] According to the Respondent/Plaintiffs version of events, he had given friendly loans to the First Appellant/Defendant in five tranches.

[10] The first tranche was for a sum of RM40,000.00 which the Respondent/Plaintiff had allegedly withdrawn from his fixed deposit account and had given to the First Appellant/Defendant sometime in August 2012. This was done supposedly at the request of the latter because the latter had informed the former that the latter was "short of funds to pay RHB Bank Berhad for a matured Banker's Acceptance".

[11] On this first tranche of the loan, the Respondent/Plaintiff claimed that the First Appellant/Defendant had promised to repay the sum borrowed but had only repaid RM1,000.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff and has failed to pay the remaining amount.

[12] The second tranche relates to four cheques that were issued for a total of RM57,000.00, again made, as alleged by the Respondent/Plaintiff, at the request from the First Appellant/Defendant. This was said to have taken place between September 2012 and October 2012.

[13] The third tranche involved credit card payments made by the Respondent/Plaintiff in favour of two entities controlled by the First Appellant/Defendant. The total sum involved was RM203,796.00.

[14] This was followed by the fourth tranche, whereby a sum RM26,000.00 was taken from the Respondent's/Plaintiffs aunt.

[15] The fifth and final tranche was the cashing of two cheques issued by the Respondent/Plaintiff for the amount of RM18,000.00, which was used by the First Appellant/Defendant to pay off his credit card debts.

[16] The Appellants/Defendants denied ever requested nor taken any loan from the Respondent/Plaintiff.

The Claims In The Sessions Court

[17] In view of the facts as set out above, the Respondent/Plaintiff's claim against the Appellants/Defendants at the Sessions Court was for sums of money that was given as a loan by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the First Appell