12 月 16, 2024

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Summary and Facts
In Shim Vui Geh v Dayang Masturah bt Sahari and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 755, the dispute arose from a loan agreement where the plaintiffs provided properties as security and later transferred these properties to the defendant following a loan default. The High Court initially ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring the loans void under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (“the MA”) due to the unreasonable interest rate. The defendant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal (COA).

Legal Issues
i. Whether the plaintiffs could claim they did not understand the nature of the agreements they signed?
ii. Whether the transactions constituted friendly loans or illegal moneylending?
iii. Whether the lender was entitled to take outright ownership of properties as security following the borrowers’ default?
iv. Whether the transfer and registration of the properties in the lender’s name were legally enforceable or should be set aside?

Court Findings

The Court held that the plaintiffs could not deny knowledge of the agreements they signed. Evidence showed that a lawyer explained the documents in their native language, confirming their understanding.
Shim successfully rebutted the presumption of being engaged in illegal moneylending by demonstrating the absence of a pattern or continuity in such transactions.
The Court ruled that land provided as security must follow the prescribed method under the Moneylenders (Control and Licensing) Regulations 2003.

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

1 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

1 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

1 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ANCHORED IN CONTROVERSY: M/T AFRA OAK AND THE COST OF NAVIGATIONAL NEGLIGENCE

The English High Court’s decision in the M/T Afra Oak [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 609 case sheds light on the delicate balance between following charterer instructions and exercising good seamanship. Anchoring in prohibited waters led to the vessel’s detention and highlighted the importance of complying with local and international maritime laws, such as UNCLOS. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for operators in Malaysia and the region, emphasizing clear communication, legal compliance, and proactive risk management in high-traffic zones like the Straits of Malacca.

1 1 月 ,2025 尚無留言

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.

16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言