Wisma Majujaya obtains summary judgement in RM28.1m suit against Bina Puri

• Allowing a summary judgement means that the court allows a party’s application to have a judgement against another without going for a full trial.
• Judicial Commissioner Zaharah Hussain ordered Bina Puri Holdings and the other defendants to pay the judgement sum of RM28.172 million, with 8% interest, within 14 days of Monday’s decision.

SHAH ALAM (Feb 3): Wisma Majujaya Sdn Bhd has obtained a summary judgement from the High Court on Monday over its RM28.1 million suit filed against Bina Puri Holdings Bhd (KL:BPURI), its subsidiary Bina Puri Properties Sdn Bhd, and its director Tan Sri Tee Hock Seng.

In allowing the summary judgement, Judicial Commissioner Zaharah Hussain, in her decision delivered online, also dismissed the counterclaim filed by Tee.

Allowing a summary judgement means that the court allows a party’s application to have a judgement against another without going for a full trial.

Zaharah also ordered Bina Puri Holdings and the other defendants to pay the judgement sum of RM28.172 million, with 8% interest, within 14 days of Monday’s decision.

The court also ordered the three defendants to pay RM10,000 total costs to Wisma Majujaya.

In addition, it ordered Tee to pay an additional RM5,000 costs for the dismissal of his counterclaim against the plaintiff.

The counsel representing Wisma Majujaya, Kwan Will Sen of Messrs Lim Chee Wee Partnership, confirmed Monday’s outcome when contacted by The Edge.

Tee’s counsel, Cheah Ben Jie of Messrs Chris Lim Su Heng, when contacted by The Edge on the matter, also confirmed the summary judgement entered against Bina Puri Properties, Bina Puri Holdings, and Tee, and the dismissal of the counterclaim by Tee.

On Jan 27, it was reported that Wisma Majujaya, a Klang-based company, had filed the suit on May 16 last year.

Wisma Majujaya had given a RM10 million loan in 2017 for the Puri Residence project in Johor Bahru, with the joint-venture agreement (JVA) that Bina Puri Properties shall manage and develop the project’s construction by appointing contractors and furnishing monthly reports of the project.

Wisma Majujaya claimed that under the agreement dated Nov 23, 2017, the project should yield a return of up to RM26 million on its investment as stipulated in Schedule 2 of the JVA, where the five repayments were to be made between Dec 31, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020.

It added that in the event of late payment, Wisma Majujaya should be entitled to an 8% interest per annum.

JVA signed on Nov 23, 2017

The JVA was signed by Tee and Datuk Matthew Tee Kai Woon, directors of Bina Puri Properties. In consideration of the JVA, Bina Puri Holdings and Tee entered into a corporate and personal guarantee dated Nov 23, 2017.

To meet the payment of the RM10 million investments, Wisma Majujaya had sought advances from its shareholder Datuk Tan Hock Kien and other parties. The investment was paid in three tranches between Nov 23, 2017, and April 27, 2018.

The company claimed that by Dec 31, 2018, Bina Puri Properties was supposed to make the first part of the repayment of the return on investment, but it did not do so. On March 7, 2019, Wisma Majujaya, through its solicitors, demanded the RM5 million first repayment, together with late repayment interest of RM64,657.53.

The letters were also distributed to the other defendants, Wisma Majujaya claimed.

This occurred until the final part payment of the return on investment was not paid on Aug 31, 2020, when Wisma Majujaya demanded the defendant to pay up. However, the defendant offered a proposal for payment via properties, which was rejected by Wisma Majujaya on Oct 14, 2020.

Between November 2020 to March 2024, Bina Puri Properties only paid part of the payments totalling RM7 million between Feb 10, 2021 and Jan 12, 2024. Wisma Majujaya claimed the part payments showed that the defendant had failed or refused and neglected to pay the amount agreed in the JVA, and hence Wisma Majujaya sought the sum of RM28.1 million.

Act considered money-lending, and therefore illegal, with counterclaim filed

The counterclaim that was dismissed on Monday was filed by Tee through Messrs Chris Lim Su Heng on Dec 6, 2024. It alleged that the RM10 million consideration sum in the alleged JVA is illegal, and constitutes illegal money-lending transactions disguised as the alleged JVA.

Tee claimed that the device used in the alleged JVA and purported corporate guarantee dated Nov 23, 2017, to secure the loan with interest to circumvent the provisions of the Moneylenders Act 1951, is illegal, null and void, and not enforceable under the Act, and is caught under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.

Tee further claimed that the RM10 million consideration disbursed by Wisma Majujaya through its solicitors as alleged is in fact illegal, and contravened the Moneylenders Act 1951.

The illegal consideration of the guaranteed capital investment return and cumulative guaranteed capital investment return in Schedule 2 of the alleged JVA were nothing but exorbitant interest disguised as investment returns, he claimed.

“There is an exorbitant return stipulated in the alleged JVA as a result of the RM10 million lent. This return far exceeds the amount lent. The plaintiff does not have a developer’s licence, which contradicts the fact that they carry on business as a housing developer,” Tee further alleged.

Following that, Tee was seeking a declaration that Wisma Majujaya and Tan are unlicensed money-lenders within the meaning of the Moneylenders Act 1951, with regard to the alleged JVA, and corporate and personal guarantee dated Nov 23, 2017.

He was further seeking a declaration that the Nov 23, 2017 JVA and other related documents are money-lending contracts in respect of money lent by Wisma Majujaya as unlicensed money-lenders, and they should be deemed illegal, null, void, and unenforceable against Bina Puri Properties.

Meanwhile, Bina Puri Holdings in a Bursa Malaysia announcement on Jan 27 had said that it expected that there would be “no significant financial impact” from the suit filed against them.

The law firm's partner and principal Chris Lim told The Edge they had received instructions from Tee to appeal against the decision, and would file the necessary stay application to the judgement.

EdgeProp.my is currently on the lookout for writers and contributors to join our team. Please feel free to send your CV to [email protected] 

Looking to buy a home? Sign up for EdgeProp START and get exclusive rewards and vouchers for ANY home purchase in Malaysia (primary or subsale)!