Golden Wheel Credit Sdn. Bhd. v Dato’ Siah Teong Din

Appellant(s): Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s): Dato' Siah Teong Din

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The appellant, a licensed moneylender, entered into two moneylending agreements with the respondent, who was a director and shareholder of a property development company.
• The loan sums were disbursed to the respondent's company based on the respondent's instructions and secured by guarantees from the company.
• The agreements were found to be void and unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act 1951 (MLA 1951) due to non-compliance with prescribed forms for secured loans, interest rate limits, and failure to deliver stamped copies. The appellant sought restitution under the Contracts Act 1950 (CA 1950), not contractual enforcement.

• Whether the moneylending agreements, which were void and unenforceable under the MLA 1951, were also illegal.
• Whether the appellant was entitled to recover restitution of the unpaid principal under sections 66 and 71 of the CA 1950, given the agreements' void nature.
• Whether the principles established in the Federal Court's Detik Ria Guidelines on restitution for void/illegal contracts applied to the facts of the case.

• The Court held that the moneylending agreements were void and unenforceable due to non-compliance with the MLA 1951, but were not illegal, distinguishing between void and illegal agreements.
• Applying the Federal Court's Detik Ria Guidelines, the Court found that the non-compliance did not constitute a "central illegality" under the MLA 1951, as the appellant was a licensed moneylender and the interest rates were not extortionate.
• The Court concluded that denying restitution under section 66 CA 1950 would be disproportionate, as the appellant had performed its part of the agreement by disbursing the funds as instructed by the respondent, and the agreements were void but not illegal. The appeal was allowed.