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