Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

MONEYLENDERS ACT 1951- UNJUST ENRICHMENT OR ILLEGAL LOAN? COURT WEIGHS RESTITUTION AGAINST THE MONEYLENDERS ACT

1. Summary and Facts

In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2021] 12 MLJ, the plaintiff, a licensed moneylender, entered into two loan agreements with the defendant personally for a total of RM3.5 million. Although the loans were documented with the defendant, the funds were in fact disbursed to Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd, a company where the defendant was a director and shareholder, for its business purposes. After deducting transaction costs, the net amount advanced was RM3,383,500.

Because the loan agreements failed to comply with the strict statutory requirements under the Moneylenders Act 1951, they were void and unenforceable. The plaintiff then reframed its claim, not under the loan agreements, but instead under the doctrines of money had and received and/or unjust enrichment pursuant to the Contracts Act 1950, arguing that the defendant had benefited from the loan monies.

The defendant applied to strike out the suit on the basis that it was, in substance, an attempt to enforce an illegal and unenforceable moneylending transaction contrary to the Act.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether a licensed moneylender can recover the principal amount under a loan agreement that is void ab initio for statutory illegality through a claim in unjust enrichment or money had and received.
• Whether Sections 66 and 71 of the Contracts Act 1950 apply to a claim arising from a void ab initio loan agreement in contravention of the Moneylenders Act 1951.
• Whether the principle of stultification operates to bar restitutionary recovery in cases of statutory illegality under the Moneylenders Act 1951.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Court allowed the striking out application.
• Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 was not applicable because the moneylending agreements were void ab initio under the Moneylenders Act 1951.
• The claim for unjust enrichment failed because the loan sums were disbursed to Instant Bonus Development Sdn Bhd, not to the defendant personally.
• The Court declined to follow cases allowing recovery of the principal under an illegal moneylending contract, holding that permitting such recovery would still amount to enforcing an illegal loan.

4. Practical Implications

This decision affirms several important legal principles governing the rights and liabilities of licensed moneylenders and borrowers, particularly when a loan agreement is void for non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951:
• The lender cannot recover the outstanding principal or interest, not even by reframing the claim as unjust enrichment.
• The stultification principle applies, where the court will not allow any claim that would indirectly enforce an illegal loan, as it would oppose the MLA’s purpose and public policy.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们