{
  "id": 11882980,
  "title": "Mahkamah Tinggi ketepi perjanjian fi guaman RM1.55 juta libat 203 anak guam",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/04/mahkamah-tinggi-ketepi-perjanjian-fi-guaman-rm1-55-juta-libat-203",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-04T08:17:29.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Malaysia Today",
    "slug": "free-malaysia-today-freemalays",
    "url": "https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2026/10/04/mahkamah-tinggi-ketepi-perjanjian-fi-guaman-rm1-55-juta-libat-203-anak-guam"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur examined the fairness of a contract between a Guaman firm and 203 Guaman investors, finding the agreement to be unfair and containing unreasonable terms. The court ordered all 18 Guaman investors to return RM1.55 million claimed to be unjustly taken, as there was no binding contract. The judge instructed the court to oversee the valuation process and return any payments deemed excessive within 30 days of the valuation certificate issuance. Plaintiffs, a collective investment scheme experiencing significant financial losses in a joint venture with MYAirline founder Goh Hwan Hua, sued the Guaman firm. They challenged the appointment terms signed on Jan 16, 2024, and sought to cancel the agreement, a continuation period for the valuation process, and an emergency order for the valuation of all 18 Guaman investors. Issues considered include whether the contract was reached fairly after several meetings with prospective counsel before signing. The court also examined if the unreasonable terms included hourly rates, no maximum fee cap, and the firm's expected earnings reaching approximately RM5 million. Plaintiffs raised concerns about excessive fees, such as RM2,000 per hour for individual work not officially designated as legal work and RM160,100 for eight staff members attending a media hearing. They claimed overbilling, overwork, and lack of accurate time records. In a 43-page decision, the judge affirmed that fairness in contracts should be assessed based on fiduciary duty between legal counsel and clients, ruling the plaintiff successful in proving the case under Section 118 of the Professional Conduct of Lawyers Act 1976, and invalidating the alternative dispute resolution clause in the contract.",
  "summary": "Hakim putus perjanjian peguam cara-anak guam tidak dicapai secara adil dalam kes pelaburan, lalu memerintahkan 18 fi ditaksir semula.",
  "key_points": [
    "Mahkamah Tinggi deemed Guaman contract unfair with unreasonable terms",
    "Court orders 18 investors to return RM1.55 million unjustly claimed",
    "Plaintiffs' lawsuit challenges appointment terms signed Jan 16, 2024"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "Mahkamah Tinggi ketepi perjanjian fi guaman RM1.55 juta libat 203 anak guam",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/04/mahkamah-tinggi-ketepi-perjanjian-fi-guaman-rm1-55-juta-libat-203-11884618",
        "published": "2026-10-04T08:17:29.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}