Author: Robin

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
NADZARIN WOK NORDIN JC
SUIT NO D-22-306 OF 2009
3 November 2020

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 29)

[1]  Before me, the Plaintiff, Loh Meng Keong (Plaintiff) has filed an application under enclosure 29 (Enclosure 29) for inter alia the following:

• a)the 2^nd defendant, one Syed Mustaffa bin Syed Abdullah (D2) be ordered to transfer the property known as Lot A143 held under HS(D) 9547 PT No. 13170 Mukim Bentong, Negeri Pahang (Property) within 7 days from date of order;
• b)D2 be ordered to surrender the Issue Document of Title (IDT) of the Property after the memorandum of transfer has been effected within 14 days of the order;
• c)that a penal notice be endorsed to the Consent Judgment dated 21.5.2010 (Consent Judgment); and
• d)Costs

[2]  The grounds on which Enclosure 29 is based are as follows:

• a)the application is made pursuant to Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Court 2012
• b)from 2015 to-date D2 had failed, refused and/or neglected to cause the transfer of the Property to the Plaintiff or his Executors
• c)D2 had taken advantage to delay or not to comply with the Consent Judgment as the Consent judgment did not state a time period for the transfer of the property to the Plaintiff or his Executors.

[3]  Prayer a and b are however now redundant as the said IDT has been surrendered and the parties are making the necessary process for the transfer of the Property to the Plaintiff’s Executor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is now only seeking for prayers 3 & 5 in Enclosure 29 i.e for a penal notice be endorsed to the Consent Judgment and costs.

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
WONG KIAN KHEONG J
SIVIL SUIT NO BA-22NCVC-423-07 OF 2017
8 November 2020

JUDGMENT

(After trial)A. Introduction

[1]  This judgment essentially concerns whether –

• (1)a sale of the plaintiff’s (Plaintiff) property in a piece of land (Land) [on which three units of three-storey terrace house (Property) are erected] to the first to fourth defendants (“1^st Defendant” to “4^th Defendant”); and
• (2)the subsequent registration of the transfer of the Land from the Plaintiff to the 1^st to 4^th Defendants (Transfer) under the National Land Code (NLC)

– is genuine or an unlicensed moneylending business which is prohibited by s 5(1) of the Moneylenders Act 1951 (MA). The Plaintiff has alleged in this case that the fifth defendant (5^th Defendant), a practising Advocate and Solicitor (A&S), abetted the 1^st to 4^th Defendants in the commission of an unlicensed moneylending business by disguising it as a sale of the Property.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
UMI KALTHUM, ZABARIAH YUSOF AND HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NO W-02(NCVC)(A)-2124-10 OF 2018
13 November 2019

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Consequential orders — Whether High Court had inherent jurisdiction/power to grant consequential orders to give effect to its earlier judgment — Whether consequential orders necessary to achieve justice or prevent abuse of process of court — Whether consequential orders particularly useful in providing justice to a party faced with an opponent bent on defying whatever judgment or order pronounced by the court — Whether in such cases the court’s exercise of its inherent power to grant consequential orders did not breach the principle of functus officio or amount to altering or varying the terms of a final judgment — Whether consequential orders often necessary to ‘work out’ the initial judgment so as to give effect to it

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
NOORIN BADARUDDIN J
PERMOHONAN BAGI SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO WA-25-113- 03/2020
6 July 2021

JUDGMENT

[1]  This is the Applicant’s application for leave which includes a prayer for an extension of time to file leave to commence judicial review against the Respondents (Enclosure 1) wherein the Applicant is moving the Court for a certiorari order to quash the 3^rd Respondent’s Award No.1835 dated 26.6.2019 (the “Award”). The prayers in Enclosure 1 are as follows:

• (1)Bahawa kebenaran diberi kepada Pemohon untuk memohon satu Perintah Certiorari untuk memindahkan ke Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini bagi tujuan membatalkan seluruh keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ‘Responden Ketiga’) Awad No. 1835 Tahun 2019 bertarikh 26.6.2019. (“Permohonan”);
• (2)Sekiranya Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini mendapati Permohonan ini difailkan di luar jangka masa yang ditetapkan, bahawa Pemohon diberi suatu perlanjutan masa untuk memfailkan Permohonan ini di bawah Aturan 53 kaedah 3(7) Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 iaitu dari tarikh Permohonan ini difailkan di Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini;
• (3)Suatu perintah bahawa semua prosiding selanjutnya untuk menguatkuasakan atau melaksanakan keputusan Responden Kedua dalam Awad No.1835 Tahun 2019 bertarikh 26.6.2019 dan segala prosiding dalam kes-kes Mahkamah Perusahaan No. 28(6)/4-1138/16, No.1/1-2236/19 dan No. 1/1-2254/19 digantungkan sementara menunggu keputusan muktamad Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini atas permohonan substantive ini;
• (4)Bahawa segala arahan dan perintah yang diperlukan dan berasaskan arahan dan perintah tersebut diberikan;
• (5)Bahawa kos-kos dan Permohonan ini adalah kos-kos di dalam kausa; dan
• (6)Segala relif-relif lain dan selanjutnya yang dianggap patut dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.”

[2]  On 8.9.2020, the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents were allowed by this Court to appear and be heard at the leave stage

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH AND LAU BEE LAN JJCA
RAYUAN SIVIL NO W-02(NCVC)(W)-413-03/2017
19 August 2021

JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  This appeal was brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the decision of the learned High Court Judge made on 23/2/2017 dismissing the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim against the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Respondents/1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Defendants with costs of RM400,000.00 on an indemnity basis i.e., RM100,000.00 per Respondent/Defendant.

[2]  We shall refer to the parties as follows: Appellant/Plaintiff as MBB, 1^st to 4^th Respondents/1^st to 4^th Defendants as Sparrows & Arrows, Kopetro, Nga and Liang, respectively.

[3]  This Court had directed that the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Defendant’s Notice of Motion (Encl. 16a) to adduce fresh evidence be heard and disposed of together with the appeal proper. Having heard and considered the respective parties’ oral and written submissions and the relevant Records of Appeal, we had adjourned the appeal for decision after requesting the parties to parties to submit further on issues which arose at the hearing on 19/6/2020, namely: (i) can a lawyer carrying out his legal duty be found liable for abuse of process?; (ii) can fraud be established if there is no benefit/advantage gained by the perpetrator?; and other issues which arose during the hearing. This is our judgment in respect of the appeal proper and Kopetro’s Notice of Motion (Encl. 16a) to adduce further evidence.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-623-11 OF 2019
23 December 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (2)Introduction

[1]  This Court on 25.8.2021 allowed the 3^rd Defendant (“D3”)’s application in Enclosure (“Enc.”) 135 for discovery against the 1st Defendant (“D1”) and made an Order against D1’s representative for production of all the following documents that are in his possession, custody or power, in the form of exhibit to an affidavit and if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order (Enc. 161):

• a.Dr Soraya Kunanayagam’s medical report and diagnosis on the 1st Defendant’s mental state/capacity and matters in respect of his mental state/capacity;
• b.Tengku Mizan Hospital medical reports and diagnosis in regard to the 1st Defendant’s mental state/capacity and matters in respect of his history of dementia and treatment from 2017 till present;
• c.General Hospital Kuala Lumpur’s medical reports and diagnosis in regard to the 1st Defendant’s mental state/capacity and matters in respect of his history of dementia and treatment from 2017 till present;
• d.D1’s Declaration of Trust dated 13.5.2016; and
• e.The Warrant to Act and/or any similar appointment of solicitors executed by D1 in relation to the appointment of D1’s former solicitors, Messrs Thomas Phillip and Messrs Kanesalingam & Co to represent D1.

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
MOHD FIRUZ JAFFRIL J
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-23NCVC-41-06 OF 2020
1 April 2021

JUDGEMENT

(Enc. 11)

[1]  The present application before me deals with the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim dated 17.6.2020 pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 1 (a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012.Brief Facts

[2]  On 8.7.2013, the Plaintiff executed 4 Sale & Purchase Agreements (“SPAs”) to purchase 4 units of bungalows. It was an essential term of the SPAs that the Plaintiff must pay the balance purchase price by 28/11/2014. The plaintiff failed to do so. This led to the termination of the SPAs.

[3]  Based on the matters pleaded by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff’s cause of action against the Defendants is based on professional negligence. It is the Plaintiff’s plaint that the Defendants, as the Plaintiff’s solicitors in respect of a sale and purchase transaction of 4 units of bungalows by the Plaintiff from Sunprop Development Sdn Bhd, had failed to advise that the Plaintiff had the right to secure a refund of the redemption sum amounting to RM4,315,129-49 paid under the respective sale and purchase agreements (“SPAs”).

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
LAU BEE LAN, RAVINTHRAN AND MOHD SOFIAN JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL W-02(A)-137–01 OF 2020
11 September 2021

Civil Procedure — Bill of costs — Taxation — Law firm (‘plaintiff’) was cited as third party in civil suit — Insurer for plaintiff’s lawyers appointed lawyer in another firm (‘defendant’) to defend plaintiff in suit — Following amicable settlement of suit defendant submitted bill of costs for handling matter to insurer which paid bill without objection and sent same to plaintiff for reimbursement — Plaintiff refused to reimburse on ground bill amount was excessive and unreasonable — Plaintiff applied to High Court to tax bill under s 126 of Legal Profession Act 1976 almost one year after receiving it — Whether plaintiff had right to petition for taxation when it was not the party which appointed defendant — Whether High Court was wrong in allowing bill to be taxed — Whether bill was excessive or unreasonable or devoid of details and explanation of work done — Whether plaintiff breached six-month limitation period in obtaining order for taxation of bill — Whether plaintiff had shown special circumstances to allow court to enlarge time for bill to be taxed

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-623-11 OF 2019
28 October 2021

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  Enclosure 135 is the 3^rd Defendant, Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd (“Puncak”)’s application for discovery against the 1^st Defendant pursuant to Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”).

[2]  On 25th August 2021, the 3^rd Defendant’s application was allowed with costs. This judgment contains the reasons as to why Enclosure 135 was allowed.

HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
CHOO KAH SING J
GUAMAN SIVIL NO BA-22NCC-13-01/2020
3 December 2021

JUDGMENTIntroduction

[1]  The plaintiff’s action centers on the validity of a share transfer transaction involving the 1^st defendant company’s shares which the plaintiff owned. The plaintiff averred that the share transfer form dated 6.6.2008 (hereafter ‘the impugned Form 32A’) that effected the transfer of the plaintiff’s 50% shares in the 1^st defendant company to the 4^th defendant (as transferee) was invalid in law because he did not execute the said transfer form as the transferor.

[2]  The parties have gone through a full trial, and on 26.10.2021, this Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against all the defendants. The reasons for the decision of this Court are set out as below.