1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED 2. ) THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

02f-40-07-2023w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 29 July 2024 • 02(f)-40-07/2023(W) • 121 min read
39 cases cited (2 SG, 37 foreign)

Catchwords

failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act

Judges (3)

Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal Coram Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Coram Nallini Pathmanathan Delivered

Counsel (12)

Firoz Julian Firm Pierre Chuah & Associates Firm Chuar Kia Lin Counsel Appellant Dato' Bastian Vendargon Counsel Respondent Dato' Cyrus Das Counsel Respondent Gene Vendargon Counsel Respondent Mervyn Lai Counsel Appellant Nur Ainnabila Rosdi Counsel Respondent Saritha Devi Kirupalani Counsel Respondent Tan Sri Tommy Thomas Counsel Appellant Tey Jun Ren Counsel Appellant Tommy Thomas Counsel Appellant

Parties (4)

DETIK RIA Sdn Bhd Appellant PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED Respondent THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din Appellant

Case Significance

1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) P... is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated July 29, 2024 (citation: 02f-40-07-2023w). <p>Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance Malaysia, where the key issue was whether failure to obtain the Minister of Finance's consent under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 rendered the agreement illegal and void. The Federal Court held that the agreement was not void ab initio but became unenforceable when performed without the required ministerial consent, and ordered restitution u The panel comprised Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Nallini Pathmanathan, with Nallini Pathmanathan delivering the judgment.

Summary

Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance Malaysia, where the key issue was whether failure to obtain the Minister of Finance's consent under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 rendered the agreement illegal and void. The Federal Court held that the agreement was not void ab initio but became unenforceable when performed without the required ministerial consent, and ordered restitution under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950. The case was remitted to the High Court to determine the quantum of benefits to be restored.

What was the outcome of 1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) P...?

<p>Detik Ria and Tan Sri Abdul Rahim appealed against Prudential's claim regarding a call and put option agreement for shares in Prudential Assurance ...

Statutes Cited

Capital Markets and Services Act 2007
s 217
Companies Act
s 132C
Contract Enactment
s 23 s 65
Contract Enactment 1899
s 65
Contracts Act
s 24 s 33 s 33(a) s 66
Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
s 24 s 33 s 66
Financial Services Act 2013
s 272(l)
Indian Contracts Act
s 65
Indian Contracts Act 1872
s 65
Insurance Act
s 67
Insurance Act 1967
s 67
Insurance Act 1996
s 67 s 67(1) s 68 s 96
Interpretation Act
s 17A
Malayan Contracts Ordinance
s 66

Cases Cited (39)

SG (2)
[2014] SGCA 28 [2018] SGCA 5
UK (6)
[1924] 1 KB 138 [1952] 2 KB 297 [1957] 1 QB 267 [1963] 2 QB 340 [1967] 3 All ER 321 [2016] UKSC 42
AU (1)
[1995] HCA 25
MY (28)
[1966] 1 MLJ 36 [1970] 1 MLJ 82 [1973] 2 MLJ 154 [1977] 1 MLJ 91 [1977] 2 MLJ 187 [1981] 1 MLJ 14 [1983] 2 MLJ 211 [1986] 1 MLJ 390 [1987] 1 MLJ 433 [1987] MLRA 68 [1994] 1 MLJ 369 [1995] 4 CLJ 300 [1998] 1 MLJ 393 [2000] 3 MLJ 95 [2002] 2 CLJ 57 [2003] 6 MLJ 49 [2007] 3 MLJ 284 [2014] 3 MLJ 301 [2017] 6 MLJ 638 [2018] MLJU 711 [2020] 1 MLJ 311 [2020] MLJU 204 [2021] 4 MLJ 537 [2021] 6 MLJ 348 [2022] 4 CLJ 657 [2023] 6 MLJ 818 [2024] 2 CLJ 167 [2024] 5 CLJ 193
IN (2)
(1974) 2 SCC 266 (1991) 3 SCC 79

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (02f-40-07-2023w)