COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL KARIM ABDUL JALIL, S NANTHA BALAN AND SUPANG LIAN JJCA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO W-02-(NCVC/W)-1259-06/2018, W-02(NCVC)(W)-2580-12/2018 & W-02(NCVC)(W)-2603-12/2018
15 December 2020
JUDGMENT OF THE COURTIntroduction
[1] The appellant is an advocate and solicitor. He is a partner in the legal firm of Messrs. Azri, Lee Swee Seng & Co. (“the firm”). On 9 August 2012, the respondents filed Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. 22 NCVC-943-08/2012 (“Suit 943”) and naming the appellant as the sole defendant. According to the respondents, they intended to purchase a parcel of commercial property in Kuala Lumpur and had engaged the appellant to handle the relevant sale and purchase transaction. The appellant’s position is that the respondents had engaged the firm and it was the firm which handled the conveyancing transaction and was responsible/liable for any purported shortcomings/negligence.
[2] Leaving aside the question as to whether the respondents had engaged the appellant or the firm, what is indisputable is that ultimately the sale and purchase transaction did not go through. Indeed, it could not go through. For now, it is important to mention that the intervening events are, first, the winding up of the vendor and secondly, the enforcement of a legal charge over the land, and lastly, the sale of the subject land to a third party at a public auction. The appellant says that he had no control over these events. The respondents disagree. We will come back to this issue in the later part of this judgment. The respondents tried to salvage the transaction by putting in a bid at the auction. However, their bid during the auction was unsuccessful and ultimately they were not able to purchase the land. As such, they claim that they suffered loss and damage. The respondents attribute the loss and damage to the appellant’s alleged negligence and mishandling of the conveyancing transaction.
[3] During cross-examination, the 1st respondent said (rather crudely) in reference to the appellant’s handling of the sale and purchase transaction that, “He actually screwed up the whole transaction” The respondents therefore sued the appellant for his alleged negligence in respect of the conveyancing transaction.