Malayan Banking Berhad v Soo Choon Lai (WA-29NCC-911-08/2023)

These Grounds concern the Notices of Appeal in Encls 53 & 54 against Senior Assistant Registrar’s decision on 27.09.2024 dismissing with costs, the Judgment Debtor’s (“JD”) applications under Encls 36 and 38 to set aside Bankruptcy Notice dated 14.08.2023 (“BN” – Encl 2) and the Creditor’s Petition dated 09.02.2024 (“CP” – Encl 21) respectively.

The chronology of events as set out in the JC’s submissions is adopted and repeated therein. CHRONOLOGY NO. DATE DESCRIPTION

1.

19.12.2019 Judgment-in-Default (JID) entered against the JD in KL Sessions Court, CS No. WA-B52NCC-848- 11/2019. 1 2.

28.06.2024 The JD filed the Notice of Application (Encl 7) dated 19.04.2024 at KL Sessions’ Court, Civil Suit No. WA-B52NCC-848- 11/2019 to set aside the JID, which was dismissed on 28.06.2024 with costs of RM1,000.00. 1 3.

11.10.2024 The JD filed an Application to stay the execution of the JID pending an appeal to Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCC- 69-07/2024. On 11.10.2024, the Sessions Court dismissed the stay with costs of RM1,000.00. 1 4.

02.12.2024 JD filed an Appeal at the Kuala Lumpur High Court vide Civil Appeal No. WA-12ANCC-69-07/2024 on 10.07.2024 appealing against the decision of the Sessions Court 1 dismissing the setting aside of the JID (Encl 7). The appeal was dismissed by the KL High Court with costs of

Initially, both Encls 36 and 38 were filed by the JD based on one ground, that is, there was a pending application to set aside the JID in the Sessions Court. Encls 36 and 38 are the subject of the two (2) appeals in Encls 53 and 54.

However, the JD’s application to set aside the JID and later, the appeal to the High Court, were dismissed. There are no further appeals and no stay of execution of the JID. As such, the BN and the CP cannot be challenged for a pending application or appeal to set aside the JID. On this ground, Encls 53 and 54 cannot succeed.

In a sharp pivot, the JD additionally argued that only simple interest as opposed to compound interest may be claimed. This, it is said, made the BN and the CP irregular, citing Low Mun v. Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1987] CLJ (Rep) 172 (for failure to calculate interest), Hasnah Che Hasan v. Hongkong Bank Malaysia Bhd [2010] 7 CLJ 190 (interest stated in the BN to be more than what was due, and generally, Ghazali Mat Noor v. Southern Bank Bhd & Other Cases [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 35 stating the wrong amounts in the BN.

Here, the JD calculated interest on the basis of simple interest at a flat rate, see the table in JD’s submissions in Encl 74 at paras 8 and 9. This is an extract therefrom: JD’s calculation on interest charges based on the above interest rates for 3 years 348 days: For 3 years from 01.09.2019 to 31.08.2022 RM775,090.17 x 6.65% pa = RM51,543.50 RM51,543,50 x 2.5% pa = RM1,288.60 Total interest charges per year = RM52,832.10 Therefore, RM52,832.10 x 3 years = RM154,496.30 For 348 days from 01.09.2022 to 14.08.2023 RM775,090.17 x 6.65% x 348/365 = RM49,142.84 RM49,142.84 x 2.5% = RM1,171.38 Total interest charges for 348 days = RM50,314.22 Therefore, total interest charges (RM154,496.30 + RM50,314.22) RM 208,810.52

In the BN (Encl 2) and the CP (Encl 21), interest is stated to be on a compounded basis. This is said to be wrong. However, the JID at para b) does provide for compound interest, see Encl 77 at p 4 of TAB-3. The complaint that interest in the BN was calculated wrongly and excessively, therefore fails.

Hence, the two (2) grounds raised by the JD fail. First, there is no stay of the JID. Secondly, the amounts claimed under the BN and the CP are correctly based on compound interest in accordance with the JID. The calculation of the JD based on simple interest is therefore misconceived.

In the circumstances, I dismissed Encls 53 and 54 with costs of RM3,000 subject to allocatur. Dated the 13th day of October 2025 ........................t.t.............................. YA TUAN SAHERAN SUHENDRAN JUDICIAL COMMISIONER OF THE HIGH COURT HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 11) (INSOLVENCY 2) HIGH COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA Counsel for the Judgment Debtor: Solicitors: Alicia Lee Messrs. Choong Law Office (Kuala Lumpur) Counsel for the Judgment Creditor: Solicitors: CH Yeap Messrs. CH Yeap Maluda Cheh (Kuala Lumpur) Case References: • Ghazali Mat Noor v. Southern Bank Bhd & Other Cases [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 35, • Low Mun v. Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd [1987] CLJ (Rep) 172 Decision Date: 17th September 2025