HARCON BUILDER SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 956130-H) CHIONG & PARTNERS (DISAMAN SEBAGAI SEBUAH FIRMA GUAMAN)

HARCON BUILDER SDN BHD (COMPANY NO: 956130-H) CHIONG & PARTNERS (DISAMAN SEBAGAI SEBUAH FIRMA GUAMAN)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was negligent and that such negligence caused the loss; the appellant's lack of cooperation and the appointment and conduct of new solicitors constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking causation; there was no evidence of the High Court's reasons for striking out and no proven loss or lost chance.

Citation
JA-12B-63-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Harcon Builder Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Chiong & Partners
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Case Number
JA-12B-63-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Causation and Novus Actus Interveniens, Service of Process, Abuse of Process, Extension of Time, Burden of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Tort Solicitor Client Relationship Duty of Care Causation and Novus Actus Interveniens Service of Process Abuse of Process +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harcon Builder Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Chiong & Partners

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent solicitors were negligent in failing to serve the notice of appeal within time
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's lack of cooperation broke the solicitor-client causation
  3. 3 Whether appointment of new solicitors constituted novus actus interveniens

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was negligent and that such negligence caused the loss; the appellant's lack of cooperation and the appointment and conduct of new solicitors constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking causation; there was no evidence of the High Court's reasons for striking out and no proven loss or lost chance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs