HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CHEONG HUEY CHARN – Appellant
Versus
PANG MUN CHUNG & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details on the nature of the spa and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. overview of the sham transaction definition and jurisdictional concerns. (Para 10 , 17) |
| 3. trust arrangement validity and implications of illegality. (Para 45 , 52) |
| 4. outcome based on the finding of sham agreement. (Para 66 , 68) |
Introduction
[1] These are my grounds of judgment in respect of an appeal by the 1st defendant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("the SCJ") dated 27 October 2016 after a full trial, by which the SCJ allowed the plaintiffs' claim with costs of RM25,000.00. Essentially, the SCJ declared that the plaintiffs were entitled to the disputed sum of RM431,201.11, which is the subject matter of the suit in the Court below and in this appeal before me. The sum of RM431,201.11 is presently held by Hong Leong Bank Berhad. They were the 2nd defendant in the Court below.
[2] For convenience, I shall refer to the parties by the following nomenclature: 1st defendant/appellant as "D1" and the respondents as "the plaintiffs". Where necessary, I shall specifically refer to the 1st plaintiff as "P1". Hong Leong Bank Berhad shall be referred
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.