Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LETTER OF DEMAND – IGNORANCE – CONSEQUENCES

My company entered into a Facility Agreement (“FA”) with the bank. I am the guarantor. Due to MCO, we defaulted the loan in the FA. The bank took legal action against my company and demanded the sum from me as guarantor. Can I ignore the letter of demand? What is the legal implication?

  • Legally, not all demand notices must be replied to. Failure to respond does not tantamount to an admission.
  • HOWEVER, failure to response relates to the issue of conduct of a person. The conduct of a person is relevant to how the court value a person’s evidence in court.
  • Therefore, you should not ignore a letter of demand. A valid defence (if any) will be weak in evidence for failure to reply to a letter of demand.

 What if I did not sign the guarantee to the FA as a guarantor and my signature was forged?

  • If your signature is forged, you should immediately reply and state it is forged.
  • You should also lodge a police report for forgery.
  • Failure to do any of the above will weaken your defence of forgery in evidence.

 Why is there such a problem in evidence since the law does not require demand notices to be replied to?

  • The evidentiary presumption arises from the following common-sense approach.
  • This is because under an ordinary course of business, if one man of business states in a letter to another that he has agreed to do certain things, the person who receives that letter must answer it if he means to dispute the fact that he did not agree.
  • This is an ordinary response presumed in commercial cases.
  • Similarly, if your signature is forged, a police report should be lodged.
  • Failure to do so will weaken your case in evidence. Estoppel will set in. Your defence will be perceived as an afterthought.

What should I do when I receive a letter of demand?

  1. Check the timeframe given to you to reply to the demand.
  2. Consult a lawyer as soon as possible.
  3. Instruct your lawyer to immediately reply to the demand.
  4. State your defence clearly and as early as possible.
  5. If there is a defence of fraud and forgery, immediately lodge a police report so that an investigation can be carried out.
  6. Send the documents alleged to be forged for examination by an expert.

Case in point: Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia v Lim Woon Katt [2016] 9 CLJ 73

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami