IRIS CHONG & CO YI-LI AUTO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

IRIS CHONG & CO YI-LI AUTO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Appeal allowed. D2 did not assume responsibility nor owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it acted only as stakeholder on direct instructions from the vendor (D1), did not step outside its normal role, plaintiff's reliance on D2's confirmation was unreasonable and not reasonably foreseeable, and the sessions court's finding to the contrary was plainly wrong; plaintiff's remedy is against D1. Costs of RM20,000 awarded to D2.

Citation
BA-12B-121-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Second Defendant: IRIS CHONG & CO; Respondent / Plaintiff: YI-LI AUTO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 April 2022
Case Number
BA-12B-121-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Rehearing Pursuant to Section 29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the sessions court against appellant (D2) set aside
Legal Topics
Negligence, Assumption of Responsibility, Duty of Care, Stakeholder, Default Judgment, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Negligence Assumption of Responsibility Duty of Care Stakeholder +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRIS CHONG & CO

Appellant / Second Defendant

YI-LI AUTO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Rehearing Pursuant to Section 29 Courts of Judicature Act 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the solicitor firm (D2) assumed responsibility to the plaintiff for repayment of RM100,000
  2. 2 Whether D2 owed a duty of care to a non-client (plaintiff) in respect of pure economic loss
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's reliance on D2's confirmation was reasonable and foreseeable

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed. D2 did not assume responsibility nor owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because it acted only as stakeholder on direct instructions from the vendor (D1), did not step outside its normal role, plaintiff's reliance on D2's confirmation was unreasonable and not reasonably foreseeable, and the sessions court's finding to the contrary was plainly wrong; plaintiff's remedy is against D1. Costs of RM20,000 awarded to D2.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the sessions court against appellant (D2) set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment against IRIS CHONG & CO set aside