BANKING
:
Bank and banking business
Banking - Bank and banking business - Conclusive evidence clause - Conclusiveness of certificate of indebtedness - Whether binding on parties to loan facilities
Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Hipa Corp Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor [2005] 3 MLJ 625
The loan agreement between Danaharta and Hipa was for a sum of RM10 million. The conclusive evidence clause stated that a certificate of indebtedness issued by Danaharta would be conclusive evidence of the amount of the loan and the terms and conditions of the loan.
Hipa defaulted on the loan and Danaharta sought to enforce the loan agreement. Hipa argued that the conclusive evidence clause was invalid because it was unfair and oppressive. The High Court held that the conclusive evidence clause was valid and enforceable.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the conclusive evidence clause was not unfair or oppressive because it was not unconscionable and it did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa.
The Court of Appeal found that the conclusive evidence clause was not unconscionable because it was not unfair to Hipa. The Court found that the clause was not unfair because it was not one-sided and it did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa.
The Court of Appeal also found that the conclusive evidence clause did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa. The Court found that the clause was not unfair because it did not prevent Hipa from challenging the amount of the loan or the terms and conditions of the loan.
Banker and client
Banking - Banker and client - Overdraft account - Loan released upon negligent advice from solicitors - Whether bank suffers loss if loan used to reduce borrower's overdraft - Whether money becomes property of borrower when credited to borrower's account
Mohd Azam Shuja & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 33, HC
The overdraft account held by Mohd Azam Shuja and his wife with UMBC had a limit of RM100,000. The couple borrowed money from UMBC and used the money to reduce their overdraft. The couple then defaulted on the loan. UMBC sought to foreclose on the charge and sell the couple's house.
The couple argued that UMBC could not foreclose on the charge because the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was not UMBC's money. The couple argued that the money was their money because it had been credited to their account.
The High Court held that UMBC could foreclose on the charge. The Court held that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had borrowed money from UMBC. The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had used the money to reduce their overdraft. The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had defaulted on the loan.
The Court held that the couple's argument that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was their money was not sustainable. The Court held that the money was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
Banking - Banker and client - Overdraft account - Loan released upon negligent advice of solicitors - Charge not registered due to third party caveat - Loan used to reduce overdraft - Whether loss suffered since overdraft was unsecured debt already owed
Mohd Azam Shuja & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 851, CA
The couple appealed the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
The Court of Appeal found that the couple's argument that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was their money was not sustainable. The Court found that the money was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
Bank and banking business
Banking - Bank and banking business - Conclusive evidence clause - Conclusiveness of certificate of indebtedness - Whether binding on parties to loan facilities
Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Hipa Corp Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) & Anor [2005] 3 MLJ 625
The loan agreement between Danaharta and Hipa was for a sum of RM10 million. The conclusive evidence clause stated that a certificate of indebtedness issued by Danaharta would be conclusive evidence of the amount of the loan and the terms and conditions of the loan.
Hipa defaulted on the loan and Danaharta sought to enforce the loan agreement. Hipa argued that the conclusive evidence clause was invalid because it was unfair and oppressive. The High Court held that the conclusive evidence clause was valid and enforceable.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the conclusive evidence clause was not unfair or oppressive because it was not unconscionable and it did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa.
The Court of Appeal found that the conclusive evidence clause was not unconscionable because it was not unfair to Hipa. The Court found that the clause was not unfair because it was not one-sided and it did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa.
The Court of Appeal also found that the conclusive evidence clause did not give Danaharta an unfair advantage over Hipa. The Court found that the clause was not unfair because it did not prevent Hipa from challenging the amount of the loan or the terms and conditions of the loan.
Banker and client
Banking - Banker and client - Overdraft account - Loan released upon negligent advice from solicitors - Whether bank suffers loss if loan used to reduce borrower's overdraft - Whether money becomes property of borrower when credited to borrower's account
Mohd Azam Shuja & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 33, HC
The overdraft account held by Mohd Azam Shuja and his wife with UMBC had a limit of RM100,000. The couple borrowed money from UMBC and used the money to reduce their overdraft. The couple then defaulted on the loan. UMBC sought to foreclose on the charge and sell the couple's house.
The couple argued that UMBC could not foreclose on the charge because the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was not UMBC's money. The couple argued that the money was their money because it had been credited to their account.
The High Court held that UMBC could foreclose on the charge. The Court held that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had borrowed money from UMBC. The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had used the money to reduce their overdraft. The Court found that the couple had not disputed the fact that they had defaulted on the loan.
The Court held that the couple's argument that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was their money was not sustainable. The Court held that the money was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
Banking - Banker and client - Overdraft account - Loan released upon negligent advice of solicitors - Charge not registered due to third party caveat - Loan used to reduce overdraft - Whether loss suffered since overdraft was unsecured debt already owed
Mohd Azam Shuja & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 851, CA
The couple appealed the High Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal held that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
The Court of Appeal found that the couple's argument that the money that was used to reduce the overdraft was their money was not sustainable. The Court found that the money was UMBC's money because it had been lent to the couple by UMBC. The Court held that the money did not become the couple's money until it was withdrawn from the account.
- THE MALAYSIAN e LAW ENCYCLOPEDIA
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- AGENCY
- ANIMALS
- ARBITRATION
- ARMY CASES
- ARMS AND AMMUNITION
- AUCTIONS
- BAILMENT
- BANISHMENT
- BANKING
- BETTING AND GAMING
- BILLS OF SALE
- BURIALS
- CARRIAGE BY AIR AND LAND
- CHARITIES
- CHILDREN/YOUNG PERSONS
- CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOM
- CITIZENSHIP
- CIVIL LAW
- CIVIL LAW ACT
- CONFLICT OF LAWS
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- CONTRACT
- COPYRIGHT
- COSTS
- CRIMINAL LAW
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- CURRENCY
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
- DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY/DEATH
- DEBTORS
- DEFAMATION
- ELECTIONS
- EMERGENCY LAWS
