cause to the contrary defective notice
According to Gopal Sri Ram in the case of Low Lee Lian v Ban Hin Lee Banking, the second category where the ‘cause to the contrary’ might be established is where the chargor could established that the chargee had failed to meet the conditions precedent for the right to seek order for sale.
The first circumstances where the aggrieved person can say that the chargee fails to meet the conditions to seek the order for sale is when the statutory notice of demand served was defective or improper. The notice can be said to be defective when the chargee included default interest which was more than the prescribed interest. In the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd v Meng Kuang Properties1, the 'existence of cause to the contrary' revolves around the validity or otherwise of the notice of demand sent by the solicitors of the plaintiff bank on 9 January 1988 and the subsequent statutory notice in Form 16D sent by the same party on 19 January 1988. The attacks mounted by the defendant company against the validity of the said notice of demand and the statutory notice in Form 16D are basically that (i) the sum mentioned in both the notices exceeds the actual sum owed and payable by the borrower and (ii) the plaintiff bank has not established their entitlement to default interest. In this case, the court held that the wrongful demand for payment of the default interest to which the plaintiff bank is not entitled must necessarily render the notice of demand and the Form 16D ineffectual and invalid. The notices were defective because the plaintiff demanded payment of something which the plaintiff had no right. Therefore, the plaintiff bank was not prima facie entitled to the remedies sought by them. Other than that, in the case of Multi Purpose Bank Bhd v Maimoon bt Abdul Razak2, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had without the consent from the defendant, adopted a new method of computing interest (from'1.75% above the prevailing base lending rate' to the
The first circumstances where the aggrieved person can say that the chargee fails to meet the conditions to seek the order for sale is when the statutory notice of demand served was defective or improper. The notice can be said to be defective when the chargee included default interest which was more than the prescribed interest. In the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd v Meng Kuang Properties1, the 'existence of cause to the contrary' revolves around the validity or otherwise of the notice of demand sent by the solicitors of the plaintiff bank on 9 January 1988 and the subsequent statutory notice in Form 16D sent by the same party on 19 January 1988. The attacks mounted by the defendant company against the validity of the said notice of demand and the statutory notice in Form 16D are basically that (i) the sum mentioned in both the notices exceeds the actual sum owed and payable by the borrower and (ii) the plaintiff bank has not established their entitlement to default interest. In this case, the court held that the wrongful demand for payment of the default interest to which the plaintiff bank is not entitled must necessarily render the notice of demand and the Form 16D ineffectual and invalid. The notices were defective because the plaintiff demanded payment of something which the plaintiff had no right. Therefore, the plaintiff bank was not prima facie entitled to the remedies sought by them. Other than that, in the case of Multi Purpose Bank Bhd v Maimoon bt Abdul Razak2, the defendant contended that the plaintiff had without the consent from the defendant, adopted a new method of computing interest (from'1.75% above the prevailing base lending rate' to the