Helmi Hamzah JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(The Defendant’s Counterclaim)

INTRODUCTION

[1]After the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed for failing to comply with a Consent Order dated 4 July 2022 regarding payment for security for costs (AHT Syngas Technology NV v. Future NRG Sdn Bhd [2025] MLRHU 2270 ; (“5.5% Interest”) and an additional 2.0% interest per annum (“2.0% Additional Interest”) if the loan remained unpaid by 31 July 2016.

[2]For the full trial, parties referred to documents in the Common Agreed Bundle of Documents in Enclosure 44 (“B1”) and Enclosure 45 (“B2”), marked as Part B. The authenticity of these documents was not disputed, but their contents were.

[3]The full trial took place on 9 September 2025, 30 September 2025, and 2 October 2025.

[4]On 1 December 2025, I dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim with costs of RM20,000.00, subject to an allocatur fee.

[5]Basically, the €200,000.00 ‘friendly loan’ was illegal under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (“MLA 1951”) because the Defendant was not a licensed moneylender.

[6]As a result of the aforementioned illegality under MLA 1951, the €200,000.00 ‘friendly loan’ agreement was therefore void under Sections 24(a), (b), and (e)Contracts Act