Thomson LP:

This appeal arises from an attempt by a borrower of money to avail himself of the provisions of the Moneylenders Ordinance to avoid the repayment of money he has borrowed. This, however, is a Court of law and not a Court of morals and it is on that basis that the case must be decided. I would make the further observation that the case is probably unique in the history of litigation arising out of the law relating to moneylending in this country or in the United Kingdom because of the fact that at every stage of the transactions between them each of the parties has been attended and assisted by his solicitor.

The facts are not in dispute. The appellant ("the borrower") is the registered proprietor of a piece of land in Negri Sembilan and the respondent ("the moneylender") is a moneylender who at all material times held a licence under the Moneylenders Ordinance.

On 15 December 1960, the borrower executed a charge of the land in favour of the moneylender to secure a loan of a principal sum of $230,000 for a period of six months and then payable on demand with interest at the rate of 12%.

The principal sum was not repaid on demand and on 2 January 1962 the mone