NEPLINE SDN BHD V JONES LANG WOOTON

NEPLINE SDN BHD V JONES LANG WOOTON

Under s.3 Civil Law Act the Court may adopt and adapt common law; a professional estate agency firm that knows a prospective tenant will rely on its representations owes a duty to disclose a pending foreclosure; the respondent breached that duty by omission; although pure economic loss is generally restricted, a definite sum paid in reliance (RM15,372) is recoverable; accordingly respondent liable to refund that amount.

Citation
NEPLINE SDN BHD V JONES LANG WOOTON
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Nepline Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent / Defendant: Jones Lang Wootton
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort) / Appeal From Sessions Court, Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Omission Vs Positive Statement, Pure Economic Loss, Application and Development of English Common Law Under Civil Law Act S.3
Source Language
en
Tort Civil Procedure Contract/agency Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Omission Vs Positive Statement Pure Economic Loss Application and Development of English Common Law Under Civil Law Act S.3

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nepline Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant / Plaintiff

Jones Lang Wootton

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort) / Appeal From Sessions Court, Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a professional estate agent owed a duty of care to disclose pending foreclosure to a prospective tenant / purchaser
  2. 2 Whether an omission (failure to disclose) can ground liability for negligent misrepresentation/pure economic loss
  3. 3 Whether pure economic loss is recoverable where the loss is a definite sum paid

Ratio Decidendi

Under s.3 Civil Law Act the Court may adopt and adapt common law; a professional estate agency firm that knows a prospective tenant will rely on its representations owes a duty to disclose a pending foreclosure; the respondent breached that duty by omission; although pure economic loss is generally restricted, a definite sum paid in reliance (RM15,372) is recoverable; accordingly respondent liable to refund that amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for appellant for refund of RM15372