Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab Bin Abd Ghani 1. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Noor 2. ) Dr Arul Balasingam 3. ) Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd

Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab Bin Abd Ghani 1. ) Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Noor 2. ) Dr Arul Balasingam 3. ) Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd

The Court of Appeal held that the Settlement Agreement's phrase "to the Plaintiff" in its natural and ordinary meaning referred to the plaintiff (Rashid) and not to his solicitors; the BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines constitute standards with the force of law under the Financial Services Act 2013 and insurers were obliged to comply; the High Court was plainly wrong to order payment to the solicitors' client account and to treat the Guidelines as mere non-binding guidance; consequently Appeal 314 is allowed (setting aside the order to pay solicitors' client account) and Appeal 1164 is dismissed.

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-314-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant (in Appeal 314); Plaintiff in Original Suit 75: Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab bin Abd Ghani; Appellant (in Appeal 1164); 1st Defendant in Original Suit 75; Plaintiff in Counterclaim: Mohd Rashid bin Mohd Noor; 2nd Respondent; 2nd Defendant in Original Suit 75: Dr. Arul Balasingam; 3rd Respondent; 3rd Defendant in Original Suit 75: Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd (Company No: 115517-A)
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 July 2024
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-314-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals to Court of Appeal From High Court (interpretation of Settlement Agreement) / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal 314 allowed; Appeal 1164 dismissed
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement Interpretation, BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines, Force of Law of Regulatory Guidelines, Solicitor's Lien and Client Account, Payment to Claimant Vs Solicitor, Costs and Interest, Order 22 B Offer to Settle
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Legal Profession / Solicitor's Lien Administrative Law (regulatory Standards) Settlement Agreement Interpretation BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines Force of Law of Regulatory Guidelines +4 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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dato' Dr. Abd. Wahab bin Abd Ghani

Appellant (in Appeal 314); Plaintiff in Original Suit 75

Mohd Rashid bin Mohd Noor

Appellant (in Appeal 1164); 1st Defendant in Original Suit 75; Plaintiff in Counterclaim

Dr. Arul Balasingam

2nd Respondent; 2nd Defendant in Original Suit 75

Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd (Company No: 115517-A)

3rd Respondent; 3rd Defendant in Original Suit 75

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals to Court of Appeal From High Court (interpretation of Settlement Agreement) / Judgment on Appeal (court of Appeal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What did the parties in Suit 75 agree in the Settlement Agreement?
  2. 2 Do the BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines have the force of law?
  3. 3 Did making the payment cheque in favour of the Plaintiff (rather than solicitors' client account) constitute refusal to recognise solicitors' authority or ignore solicitors' lien?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Settlement Agreement's phrase "to the Plaintiff" in its natural and ordinary meaning referred to the plaintiff (Rashid) and not to his solicitors; the BNM Claims Settlement Guidelines constitute standards with the force of law under the Financial Services Act 2013 and insurers were obliged to comply; the High Court was plainly wrong to order payment to the solicitors' client account and to treat the Guidelines as mere non-binding guidance; consequently Appeal 314 is allowed (setting aside the order to pay solicitors' client account) and Appeal 1164 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal 314 allowed; Appeal 1164 dismissed

Orders

  • Allow Appeal No. W-02(NCvC)(W)-314-03/2023
  • Dismiss Appeal No. W-02(NCvC)(W)-1164-07/2023