Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of solicitors

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2020

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 3813 – K) 1. NILAI HARTA CONSULTANT SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 564594 – U) 2. YAM CHUNG KEAT (NO. K/P : 690106-06-5111) 3. LOKE, CHEW & ZAINAL (Didakwa sebagai sebuah firma)

Citation

BA-22NCVC-362-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-362-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred: the cause of action accrued and limitation began to run when the loan was disbursed (pinpointed to 31.3.2008/31.3.2008 disbursement event) such that the suit filed on 23.8.2019 exceeded the six year limitation; the Plaintiff failed to particularise fraud to invoke s.29 and failed to plead the legal basis for an indemnity claim with sufficient clarity; therefore summary striking out under O.18 r.19 was appropriate.
31 Jan 2020

1. YAP PIAT ENG @ YAP LIEN ENG (NO. K/P: 390905-10-5074) 2. HOYEN ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 36962-D) 1. YAP KOK SHENG (NO. K/P: 801109-14-5159) (BERAMAL DIBAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA “SHENG LEE LAW OFFICE”) 2. WONG ING TONG (NO. K/P: 730301

Citation

WA-21NCVC-35-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCVC-35-03/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the plaintiffs did not sign or authorise the disputed sale, key attestations were forged or unattested and the 1st defendant was responsible for the fraudulent transfers; transfers to the 2nd defendant and charges in favour of the bank were therefore defeasible and were set aside because the bank did not act in good faith given knowledge of caveats/allegations and inadequate inquiry; claims against the registrar and purchaser solicitors were dismissed.
18 Feb 2019

SYARIKAT RODZIAH MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

J-02(IM)(NCVC)-1371-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-02(IM)(NCVC)-1371-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court allowed the appeal and struck out the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant because the pleadings failed to particularise alleged fraud/conspiracy, the 2nd Defendant’s retainer was limited to preparing loan documentation (no duty to investigate SPA/valuations), the Plaintiff had taken inconsistent positions in earlier proceedings (debt recovery and dismissal for negligence) amounting to issue switching/forum shopping and estoppel, and on the facts the claim was an abuse of process or obviously unsustainable under Order 18 r.19 ROC 2012.

Malaysia Case Law

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT : 3813 – K) 1. NILAI HARTA CONSULTANT SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 564594 – U) 2. YAM CHUNG KEAT (NO. K/P : 690106-06-5111) 3. LOKE, CHEW & ZAINAL (Didakwa sebagai sebuah firma)

1. YAP PIAT ENG @ YAP LIEN ENG (NO. K/P: 390905-10-5074) 2. HOYEN ENTERPRISE SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 36962-D) 1. YAP KOK SHENG (NO. K/P: 801109-14-5159) (BERAMAL DIBAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA “SHENG LEE LAW OFFICE”) 2. WONG ING TONG (NO. K/P: 730301

SYARIKAT RODZIAH MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD