Errors in statutory form of moneylending contracts do not render them void if they comply with the spirit of the legislation; acceptance of terms creates estoppel against later disputes.

[1] The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for a return of monies loaned to her by the plaintiff together with late payment charges on the said sum. The plaintiff is a licensed money lending company incorporated in Malaysia.

[2] The outline facts are comprehensively set out in the written submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff and I adopt and reproduce in large part of those submissions in relation to the salient facts.

[3] At the defendant's request in or around December 2008, the plaintiff approved a credit facility in favour of the defendant in the sum of RM75,000.00 ('the first credit facility'). The plaintiff and the defendant then entered into a moneylending agreement (Unsecured Loan) dated 23 December 2008 ('the first moneylending agreement'). The form of the agreement was in accordance with Schedule J of the Moneylenders (Control and Licensing) Regulations 2003 ('the Regulations') under the Moneylenders Act 1951 . A copy of the said moneylending agreement was sent to the defendant, according to the plaintiff, on 23 December 2008 and the said sum was duly disbursed to her on the same date. This is not in issue. Pursuant to the terms of the first moneylending agreement the defendant was to repay the plaintiff a total sum of RM81,000.00 in one payment by 22 December 2009. The plaintiff complains that it failed to receive any payment from the defendant by the aforesaid due date of 22 December 2009 or thereafter. Accordingly a legal demand dated 20 April 2011 was issued to the defendant, which demand included 8% late payment interest per annum computed on a daily basis. This is in accordance with cl 2 of the first moneylending agreement.

[4] The plaintiff also afforded a second or further credit facility to the defendant in the sum of RM1,000,000.00 (RM1 million) pursuant to a further request by the defendant in 2009. On 18 March 2009, the plaintiff issued a letter of offer to the defendant stating that it had approved in principle a loan of RM1 million to her on specific terms. These terms included, inter alia, the following:

(i) A facility amount of RM1 million;

(ii) An interest rate of 8% per annum calculated on a flat rate basis (as explained in the agreement);

(iii) A term of 24 months;

(iv) Disbursement was to be made to the defendant after deductions of RM30,000.00 by way of an arrangement fee, up to RM14,000.00 for stamp duty and legal costs, upfront interest payment of RM60,000.00. The balance was to be disbursed to the defendant at an account nominated by her;

(v) The facility was repayable on demand. Additionally the defendant was to repay the entire facility upon the expiry of the term of 24 months.

(vi) Upon expiry of the term or until a demand for repayment is made the instalment repayments of the facility were in eight instalments. The first to seventh instalment comprised RM20,000.00 each totalling RM140,000.00, while the eighth instalment payment upon expiry of the term comprised a sum of RM1,020,000.00. As such the total sum repayable by the defendant to the plaint