SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 MarsdenLR 1092

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)
Nantha Balan J:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top