Tea Chun Hia @ Teoh Chun Hia & Ors v Lim Peng Khoon

Appellant(s):

• Tea Chun Hia @ Teoh Chun Hia
• Lee Chee Khoon
• Lee Hui Khoon
• Lee Wooi Khong

Respondent(s): Lim Peng Khoon

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The dispute concerned five plots of land (the Lands) originally belonging to the deceased husband/father of the appellants, which were subsequently transferred to the respondent by the deceased's daughter (the executrix).
• The appellants later transferred the Lands to themselves, relying on a purported settlement agreement (SA) and a power of attorney (PA) allegedly executed by the respondent, which the respondent claimed were forged.
• The respondent initiated a civil suit seeking declarations that the SA and PA were null and void, that the Lands were fraudulently transferred, and for their retransfer, along with damages.

• Whether the High Court's judgment was null and void because one of the appellants was adjudged bankrupt before its delivery, without obtaining leave under Section 8(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967.
• The proper approach to the burden of proof concerning the statutory presumption of due execution of a power of attorney under Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 3(2) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1949.
• Whether the appellants were barred from raising issues in their defence that had been pleaded in a previous suit (Suit 156) which was struck out with no liberty to file afresh.

• The Court held that leave under Section 8(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 was not required for the delivery of judgment, as the principal reliefs sought were declaratory and proprietary in nature, not for a provable debt. Leave would only be necessary for enforcing monetary judgments against the bankrupt.
• The Court affirmed that while Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1950 creates a rebuttable presumption of due execution for a PA, the respondent had successfully rebutted this presumption with compelling direct and circumstantial evidence of forgery.
• The Court ruled that although cause of action or issue estoppel did not strictly apply, raising the same issues as a defence constituted an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to circumvent a previous court order prohibiting re-litigation of those matters.