Category: Malayan Law Journal

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
ATAN MUSTAFFA YUSSOF AHMAD J
GUAMAN NO WA-22NCC-313-07/2018
26 December 2023

JUDGMENT

[1]  When a RM400 million loan turned sour, what ensued was a complex web of litigation involving claims, counterclaims and impeachment actions between borrower and lender. Now, the borrower and guarantors seek respite from the bank’s recovery action by applying for a stay of execution of a judgment obtained against them. As allegations of fraud, deception and sabotage swirl, the court wades through the murky waters to determine if there exist “special circumstances” warranting such relief.

HIGH COURT (LUMPUR)
WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN WAN YAHYA J
SAMAN PEMULA NO WA-24NCC-131-03/2018
23 November 2023

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 16)

[1]  This was essentially an application by the Proposed Interveners via Notice of Application dated 27.5.2022 (Enclosure 16) to intervene in the proceedings and to set aside this Court’s Order dated 28.6.2018 under, inter alia, Order 15 Rule 6 and/or Order 42 Rule 3 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court (“ROC”), the inherent jurisdiction of the Court (“this Application”).

[2]  On 28.6.2018, this Court through His Lordship Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan (as he then was) had made the following Orders in respect of the Originating Summons (“the Originating Summons” or “Enclosure 1”):

“1. bahawa nama syarikat Cekap Asia Sdn. Bhd. (No. Syarikat 558394-A) dimasukkan semula ke dalam daftar syarikat Defendan menurut peruntukan Seksyen 555 Akta Syarikat 2016 (Akta 777); dan

2. Kos tindakan sebanyak RM2,000.00 dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan dalan tempoh tiga puluh (30) hari dari tarikh perintah.”

(“Order dated 28.6.2018”)

[3]  The Proposed Interveners sought to intervene and set aside the Order dated 28.6.2018.

[4]  Having heard arguments from all the parties I dismissed this Application and set out below the reasons for my decision

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
JOHN LEE KIEN HOW @ MOHD JOHAN LEE J
SUIT NO WA-22NCvC-506-09 OF 2017
1 September 2023

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(After Trial)Introduction

[1]  Manoj Singh (“2nd Plaintiff”) came to know that a property of Ali Reza (“1st Plaintiff”) in Ampang, Kuala Lumpur was transferred to Chew Ben Ben (1st Defendant) and his wife Zhao Tong (“2nd Defendant”) witnessed by Kevin Sathiaseelan (“3rd Defendant”). The 1^st Plaintiff had also, allegedly, given a power of attorney appointing Dato’ Syed Alwi (“4th Defendant”) as his attorney. Dissatisfied with this, the 2^nd Plaintiff in his own capacity and on behalf of the 1^st Plaintiff then filed a suit (“this Action”) against all the Defendants claiming that he has the valid power of attorney of the 1^st Plaintiff. He also alleged that without his involvement, the transfer perfected was invalid.

[2]  From the time this Action was filed up until the date of this grounds of judgment, the Plaintiff, an Iranian national, has been serving time in an Iranian jail. The 1^st Plaintiff had previously spent sometimes in Malaysia and was bestowed a datukship during the time here. This judgment is delivered after the full trial conducted pertaining to this Action in which the 2^nd Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had committed fraud and conspiracy to injure.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
LEE SWEE SENG, NANTHA BALAN AND NORDIN HASSAN JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NO C-02(NCvC)(W)-607–03 OF 2021
3 May 2023

Contract — Specific performance — Terms — Contract between developer and purchaser provided that purchaser could not apply for change of category of land use from ‘agriculture’ to ‘building’ — Purchaser successfully converted category of land use from ‘agriculture’ to ‘building’ — High Court allowed developer’s application for specific performance — Whether term in contract prohibiting application for change of category of land use would be void and unenforceable under s 24(b) of the Contracts Act 1950 — Whether term in contract prohibiting application for change of category of land use would be void and unenforceable under s 24(e) of the CA as being contrary to public policy — Whether there were other reasons for dismissing developer’s claim for specific performance and for mandatory injunction to demolish longhouse built on land — Contracts Act 1950 s 24(b) & (e) — Federal Constitution art 13 — Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 s 22D — National Land Code ss 124(1)(a) & 214

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
LIZA CHAN SOW KENG JC
CIVIL SUIT NO WA-22NCC-623-11 OF 2019
14 August 2022

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (3)Introduction

[1]  Pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ application in Enclosure (“Enc.”) 203, I had assessed damages at sum of RM225,477.73. These are the reasons for my decision.Background

[2]  Owing to the non-compliance of the discovery order made on 25.8.2021, an “Unless Order’ in the terms as contained in Enc. 176 was made on 21.9.2021 against the 1^st Defendant’s representative to be complied with by 30.9.2021. The disobedience of the “Unless Order “resulted in judgment being entered on 18.10.2021 against the 1^st Defendant on terms as follows:

• (i)That the Order obtained on 21.5.2019 by the 1^st Defendant in Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. WA- 24NCC-134-03/2019 is declared to have been obtained by fraud and/or dishonesty by the 1^st Defendant;
• (ii)That the Order obtained on 21.5. 2019 by the 1^st Defendant in Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. WA- 24NCC-131-03/2019 is impeached and set aside in totality and High Court Originating Summons No. WA-24NCC131-03/2019 is struck off and/or set aside in totality;
• (iii)The 1^st Defendant’s action of filing the High Court Originating Summons No. WA24NCC-131-03/2019 amounts to an abuse of process and struck off and/or set aside;
• (iv)General damages to be assessed against the 1^st Defendant;
• (v)Interest to accrue at the rate of 5% per annum on such damages as may be assessed and awarded by this Honourable Court from the date of Judgment till the date of full and final settlement of the same;
• (vi)1^st Defendant to pay costs of RM75,000 to the Plaintiffs subject to allocator;
• (vii)1^st Defendant to pay costs of RM30,000 to D2 subject to allocator; and
• (viii)1^st Defendant to pay costs of RM40,000 to D3 subject to allocator.

[3]  The reasons for allowing the discovery application, the background leading to the filing of this suit, the nature of the Plaintiffs’ suit have been set out in my first grounds of judgment – see Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Syed Hamzah bin Syed Abu Bakar (deceased) (representative appointed, Syed Sazlee bin Syed Hamzah) & Ors [2022] 8 MLJ 43; [2021] 1 LNS 1740. The reasons for making the ‘Unless Order’, its non-adherence leading to judgment being entered against the 1^st Defendant were set out in Sitrac Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato’ Syed Hamzah bin Syed Abu Bakar (deceased) (representative appointed, Syed Sazlee bin Syed Hamzah) & Ors [2022] 10 MLJ 900; [2022] 2 CLJ 641.

[4]  The 1^st Defendant has since appealed against the decision of this Court in making the order for discovery, the ‘Unless Order’ and Judgment entered on 18.10.2021. These 3 appeals were pending hearing before the Court of Appeal when the Plaintiffs’ filed Enc. 203 on 11.11.2021 for assessment of damages pursuant to the judgment dated 18.10.2021.

[5]  The parties agreed that assessment would proceed by way of affidavits.

[6]  As the 1^st Defendant’s solicitors have discharged themselves pending hearing of Enc. 203, the 1^st Defendant was granted an extension of time during case management on 12.1.2022 to file his affidavit in reply to the assessment of damages by end February 2022, but did not do so. Instead on 29.3.2022, the 1^st Defendant filed 2 applications respectively for extension of time to file an affidavit in reply and to stay the assessment of damages pending hearing of the above appeals. The assessment of damages was derailed pending the hearing of these 2 applications. Both applications were subsequently dismissed as this court found there were no material before the court that constituted cogent reasons warranting the exercise of discretion by the court in the 1^st Defendant’s favour, whether for extension of time or for a stay of the assessment of damages.

COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
ABDUL KARIM, NANTHA BALAN AND SUPANG LIAN JJCA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS W-02-(NCVC/W)-1259–06 OF 2018, W-02(NCVC)(W)-2580–12 OF 2018 AND W-02(NCVC)(W)-2603–12 OF 2018
15 December 2020

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Action against advocate for negligence — Whether trial judge had erred in analysis of the issue of limitation — Whether claim was time barred — Whether cause of action arose from earliest time action could be brought — Limitation Act 1953 s 6(1)(a)

Legal Profession — Duty of care — Professional negligence — Whether appellant was negligent in conveyancing transaction — Whether there was proof of breach of duty of care — Whether expert evidence must be tendered to determine standard of care — Whether appellant liable personally — Whether appellant failed to exercise due diligence in supervising SPA transaction — Whether appellant failed to perform duties in accordance with standard of a reasonably competent and prudent conveyancing practitioner — Whether loss was caused by appellant’s actions or omissions — Whether appellant was responsible for intervening events

This was the appellant’s appeal (‘Appeal 1259’) against the High Court’s finding of negligence, appellant’s appeal (‘Appeal 2603’) against quantum and respondents appeal (‘Appeal 2580’) against quantum. The appellant was an advocate and solicitor and a partner in the legal firm of Messrs Azri, Lee Swee Seng & Co (‘the firm’). 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 was 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. The respondents had entered into a sales and purchase agreement (‘the SPA’) dated 25 October 2000 with Jurumurni Sdn Bhd (‘the vendor’) to purchase a parcel of land with a 1 1/2 storey factory erected thereon (‘the property’). Subsequently, an individual title was issued for the property and it was thereafter held under title PN 31499 Lot 38698 Mukim Petaling Daerah Kuala Lumpur. The developer of the property was the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur (‘DBKL’). The vendor purchased the property from DBKL whilst the property

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

Civil Procedure — Unless order — Failure to comply — Defendant failed to comply with order for discovery of documents within given time frame — Court issued unless order giving defendant further seven days to comply — Whether defendant’s failure to obey unless order was deliberate, inexcusable and contumelious — Whether reason given by defendant for non-compliance was unacceptable to court — Whether court was compelled to strike out defendant’s defence and enter judgment for plaintiffs under O 24 r 16(1) of Rules of Court 2012

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
AHMAD KAMAL JC
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO WA-25–560–12 OF 2019
10 January 2022

Civil Procedure — Judicial review — Application for — Applicants applied for judicial review against decision of respondent – Respondent revoked applicant’s capital market services license — Whether respondent had acted in bad faith and non-compliance with its statutory powers and functions — Whether decision of respondent was unreasonable and/or irrational and/or disproportionate — Whether respondent had committed errors of law

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

Civil Procedure — Discovery — Application for — Whether there were documents — Whether documents relevant and necessary — Whether application for discovery was ‘fishing expedition’ — Whether documents in possession, custody, or power of first defendant — Whether documents necessary either for disposing fairly of the matter or for saving costs — Whether documents were privileged documents — Whether documents required by other parties — Whether there was imminent necessity for documents to be disclosed — Evidence Act 1950 s 57 — Rules of Court 2012 O 24 rr 3(4), 7 & 13(1)

MAHKAMAH TINGGI (SUNGAI PETANI)
NARKUNAVATHY SUNDARESON PK
GUAMAN SIVIL NO KB-23NCVC-4-07 TAHUN 2021
16 April 2022

ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN

(Lampiran 36)Pengenalan

[1]  Lampiran 36 adalah permohonan Defendan Pertama untuk mengenepikan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran bertarikh 28.10.2021.Penghakiman ingkar kehadiran

[2]  Berikut adalah kronologi yang membawa kepada Plaintif merekodkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap Defendan Pertama.

[3]  Writ Saman bertarikh 5.8.2021 dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 26.7.2021 telah diserahkan kepada Defendan Pertama secara pos berdaftar AR pada 9.8.2021. Defendan Pertama telah mengakui penerimaan kertas kausa tersebut pada 23.8.2021.

[4]  Defendan Pertama menegaskan bahawa terdapat kekeliruan berkenaan kertas kausa tersebut kerana mereka telah bertanggapan ianya adalah berhubung kes-kes terdahulu di antara Plaintif dan mereka yang telahpun selesai dibicarakan. Mereka hanya sedar kertas kausa tersebut berhubung suatu kes baru yang dimulakan oleh Plaintif terhadap mereka apabila mereka diserahkan dengan notis permohonan untuk memasukkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap mereka (Lampiran 19). Mereka kemudiannya melantik peguam dan memfailkan memorandum kehadiran bagi pihak mereka sendiri pada 27.10.2021.

[5]  Lampiran 19 telah ditetapkan untuk pendengaran di hadapan YA Hakim pada 28.10.2021. Piaintif telah merujuk Mahkamah kepada afidavit penyampaian mereka bertarikh 27.9.2021 (Lampiran 17) sebagai bukti penyerahan kertas kausa telah dilaksanakan terhadap Defendan Pertama dengan teratur. Plaintif juga telah merujuk kepada sijil ketidakhadiran bertarikh 30.9.2021 (Lampiran 18) yang telah difailkan apabila Defendan Pertama gagal memasukkan kehadiran dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. Plaintif memohon agar penghakiman ingkar kehadiran direkodkan terhadap Defendan Pertama.

[6]  Memandangkan Lampiran 19 teratur, Mahkamah telah membenarkan permohonan tersebut dan merakamkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap Defendan Pertama.

[7]  Wajar diambil maklum bahawa setakat hah ini, Plaintif gagal dan enggan untuk memfailkan dan menyerahkan penghakiman ingkar kehadiran berseal yang diperolehi terhadap Defendan Pertama.