Malaysia Case Law

17 Dec 2024

RAJA NOR HISHAM BINTI RAJA HIZAT NUR SYUHADA BINTI ISMAIL (beramal sebagai TETUAN SYUHADA ISMAIL & CO)

Citation

WA-24NCvC-512-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-24NCvC-512-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there was a substantial dispute of material fact regarding whether the Defendant received and held the alleged stakeholder sum, the originating summons was converted to a writ action; the Court ordered the Defendant to transfer all files related to the SPA to the Plaintiff's new solicitors and to furnish its statement of account covering the period from appointment to the date of the Plaintiff's Notice of Termination and Discharge to enable ascertainment of the alleged stakeholder sum.

• Solicitor-client relationship
• Stakeholder deposit
• Solicitor's lien
• Conversion of originating summons to writ
• Discovery and statement of account
• Termination of retainer

25 Jul 2024

CHOY KAM LEE beramal dibawah nama gaya K.L.CHOY & CO ENERGISER PROPERTIES SDN.BHD

Citation

AA-B52-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court

Sessions Court

Case number

AA-B52-7-11/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Defendant owed unpaid legal fees to Plaintiff; Plaintiff validly exercised a solicitor's lien under s124 Contracts Act 1950 and was entitled to set-off RM400,000 from the sale proceeds held, leaving a judgment sum of RM102,235.26 against Defendant; Defendant's counterclaim failed and was dismissed with costs.

• Solicitor's lien
• Set-off
• Payment of legal fees
• Transfer of property
• Enforcement of judgment

17 Jan 2022

Solaris Estates Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) MAT SHAH BIN SAFUAN 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBINAAN KOTA LAKSAMANA (MELAKA) SDN BHD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-206-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-22NCvC-206-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is incompetent and misplaced because the High Court ruling allowing the intervenor to intervene was an interlocutory decision that did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties under s3 Courts of Judicature Act 1964; furthermore the second defendant failed to demonstrate how it was aggrieved by the order, therefore the appeal cannot be maintained.

• Interlocutory appeal
• Definition of decision under courts of judicature act 1964 s3
• Right to intervene
• Solicitor's lien
• Standing to appeal

17 Jan 2022

JA-22NCVC-206-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

JA-22NCVC-206-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-22NCVC-206-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The order allowing the intervenor to intervene was interlocutory and did not finally dispose of parties' rights; the second defendant failed to show any aggrievement, and under s3 CJA and binding authorities interlocutory rulings of this nature are not appealable, rendering the appeal incompetent and liable to be dismissed.

• Intervention
• Solicitor's lien
• Appealability
• Definition of decision
• Jurisdiction

30 Oct 2019

Mohd Khairi bin Mat Jahya Abdul Rahim bin Sinwan

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-171-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-12ANCVC-171-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court failed to properly evaluate the affidavits and documentary evidence; invoices produced by defendant were dubious, some predated work or GST rules, and there was no proof invoices were served; payments of RM400,000 were held by defendant for settlement and only RM140,000 forwarded, so no triable defence was established and summary judgment for RM260,000 should be entered against the defendant.

• Stakeholder/trustee duties
• Solicitor's lien
• Summary judgment (order 14/aturan 14)
• Appellate intervention standard
• Costs
• Evidential weight of affidavits and documents

SYKT. MUZWINA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD LWN. ABBAS & NGAN

Citation

SYKT. MUZWINA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD LWN. ABBAS & NGAN

Court

Malaysian court

Where purchasers listed have not commenced any court claims, a solicitor holding retention monies beyond the contractual retention period must pay those sums to the developer; letters do not bind the solicitor unless agreed or supported by court proceedings, but where purchasers have active cross-claims arising from the same transaction the solicitor may withhold funds until resolution.

• Retention of purchase money
• Solicitor's lien
• Set-off/counterclaim
• Binding effect of letters
• Costs