TINDERMAN HOLDING LIMITED v ACE INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED

wa-24ncc-126-03-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 November 2025 • WA-24NCC-126-03/2025 • 16 min read
12 cases cited (0 SG, 12 foreign)

Catchwords

return of its monies deposited with the defendant-breached the Custodian Agreement by failing, refusing and/or neglecting to comply with the instructions to transfer the monies and to return the monies-The defendant is estopped from now taking a contrary position and imposing new terms-the doctrine of estoppel is a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the circumstances of the case. It is a doctrine of wide utility and has been resorted to in varying fact patterns to achieve justice. Indeed, the circumstances in which the doctrine may operate are endless-wrong to apply the maxim ‘estoppel may be used as a shield but not a sword’ as limiting the availability of the doctrine to defendants alone. Plaintiffs too may have recourse to it…-the detriment element does not form part of the doctrine of estoppel-In other words, it is not an essential ingredient requiring proof before the doctrine may be invoked. All that need be shown is that in the particular circumstances of a case, it would be unjust to permit the representor or encourager to insist upon his strict legal rights. In the resolution of this issue, a judicial arbiter would, when making his assessment of where the justice of the case lies, be entitled to have regard to the conduct of the litigant raising the estoppel-To allow the defendant to continue to hold the plaintiff’s custodial funds in the Custodian Account would be a breach of the Custodian Agreement. It would also be an unjust enrichment-plaintiff as a customer asking for its monies back. The defendant has no right to refuse

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (4)

Chun Hoo & Partners Firm Shahrizat Rashid & Lee Firm Fong Yi On Counsel Plaintiff Hilwa Nazifa binti Bustam Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

ACE INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED Respondent TINDERMAN HOLDING LIMITED Applicant

Cases Cited (12)

UK (8)
[1932] 1 Ch 330 [1973] 1 WLR 1002 [1973] 3 All ER 319 [1981] 1 All ER 897 [1981] 2 WLR 576 [1981] 3 All ER 577 [1981] 3 WLR 565 [1982] 1 QB 84
MY (4)
[1970] 1 MLJ 222 [1989] 2 MLJ 202 [1995] 3 MLJ 331 [2015] 2 MLJ 441

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-126-03-2025)