HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
HOO WEI MENG – Appellant
Versus
WONG ZI PING – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-22NCvC-55-04/2024]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transaction's background and financial conditions (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. transfer's notification and consent issues (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. plaintiff's and defendant's arguments (Para 18 , 19) |
| 4. principal issue determination about spa (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. definition and examples of sham agreements (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. suspicious circumstances indicating sham (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. non-payment of purchase price (Para 30 , 34 , 35 , 44) |
| 8. lack of proper legal representation (Para 36 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. absence of possession and buy-back clause (Para 56 , 60) |
| 10. loan categorized under moneylenders act (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 67) |
| 11. illegality and void contracts (Para 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 12. transfer resulting from the void spa (Para 79 , 80 , 82) |
| 13. final judgment and order outcomes (Para 85 , 86 , 87) |
Introduction
[1] This suit concerns a piece of land situated at Daerah Seberang Perai Tengah, Pulau Pinang ("land"). Originally, the land was owned by the Plaintiff ("P"). It was subsequently transferred to the Defendant ("D"). P claims that the transfer is void and sues to recover the land.
[2] After a full trial, I allowed P's claim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.
Background Facts
The Loan From The Defendant To The Plamtiff
[3] P's business was affected by the Covid - 19 pandemic and he was facing financial difficulties. In June 2021, he borrowed money from D ("loan"). D is not a licensed moneylender.
[4] There is no written agreement between the parties in relation to the loan. The loan from D to P was disbursed through several payments from June to August 2021.
[5] The total amount of the loan is RM163,850.00 This amount was admitted by D, and is supported by the bank statements produced by him. (See pp 3 to 29 of Bundle B3 of the Common Bundle of Documents, encl 25).
[6] D had imposed interest on the loan at a rate of 6 % per month. This is substantiated by a WhatsApp conversation between the parties in September 2021. (See pp 55 to 61 of Bundle B1 of the Common Bundle of Documents, encl 15).
[7] P had made some repayments to D from time to time between July 2021 and March 2022. D admitted to receiving the repayments from P amounting to RM 44,530.00. Accordingly, the debt owing by P to D is RM 119,320.00 ("debt"), ie RM 163,850.00 less RM 44,530.00.
The Documents Executed By The Plaintiff
[8] As the loan was still not fully repaid, D suggested to P to obtain a bank loan in order to settle the debt. D asked P to go to the office of the law firm of Messrs Lim & Sharifah ("said law firm") to sign some documents.
[9] P thought he was signing loan documents. He was made to believe that the documents which were to be signed at the office of the said law firm are documents in relation to obtaining a bank loan and to charge the land to the bank.
[10] P subsequently signed certain documents and surrendered the title deed to the land for the purposes of obtaining a bank loan. P says the signing happened in July 2022. D says it occurred in September 2021.
[11] As it turned out, the document signed by P is actually a sale and purchase agreement in respect of the land ("SPA"). The SPA is dated 7 September 2021.
The Transfer Of The Land From The Pjajntjff To Defendant
[12] Later on, P was informed by D that the bank loan application will be delayed. As his credit score was affected due to him delaying repayment of the instalments on his hire purchases.
[13] Around November 2022, D kept pressuring P to repay the loan. D threatened to take the land from P if he fails to make repayment.
[14] Out of precaution, P sent a WhatsApp message in January 2023 to the said law firm. Stating that he never intended to sell the land and his other property (a shop lot). The WhatsApp message reads:
"We are not going to sale our land and shop lot. For your info. Already discuss with person in charge. Ah Max."
[15] In August 2023, D informed P that the land has been transferred to D.
[16] Through
Global Globe Property (Melawati) Sdn Bhd v. Jangka Prestasi Sdn Bhd
Dr Mansur Hussain & Ors v. Barisan Tenaga Perancang (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
Mahmood Ooyub v. Li Chee Loong & Other Appeals
Paramill Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan
Triple Zest Trading & Suppliers Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Applied Business Technologies Sdn Bhd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.