SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1358

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
RUSSELL LUA KOK HIYONG & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-172-04/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Ng Sai Yeang,Yenne Chow,Mark La Brooy ,Respondent Advocate: Russell Lua Kok Hiyong,Ummi Salhah Mohamad

Solicitors owe a duty of care to clients that includes protecting their interests and advising on risks; breaches can lead to liability for damages.

Headnote:(A) Contracts - Breach of Contract - Professional Negligence - The court addressed claims by a financial institution against its solicitors for alleged breaches of contract and professional duties, seeking damages of RM526,383.09, interest, and costs. The court found that the solicitors had a duty of care to protect the Bank's interests, which they breached, causing the Bank to suffer losses. (Paras 4, 112, 133)

(B) Limitation Period - The court determined that the Bank's action was not time-barred as the cause of action arose when the property was transferred to a third party, well within the statutory limitation period. (Paras 59-61)

(C) Res Judicata - The court ruled that previous judgments did not bar the current action, as the issues were distinct and not previously litigated. (Paras 72-75)

(D) Duty of Care - The court emphasized that solicitors must exercise reasonable skill and diligence in safeguarding clients' interests, which includes advising on risks and taking necessary actions to protect those interests. (Paras 114-131) (E) Joint Liability - All partners in the firm were held jointly and severally liable for the firm's negligence and breaches. (Paras 133-135)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the solicitors breached their duty of care and contractual obligations, resulting in the Bank's losses. The Bank's claims were allowed with costs awarded.

Result: Claims allowed with costs of RM50,000.00.

Table of Content
1. law as the foundation of society. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute arises from alleged breach of contract. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. solicitors contest the allegations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. factual background of the case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
5. identification of issues to be tried. (Para 53 , 54 , 56)
6. preliminary issues raised by the solicitors. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
7. court's observations on the preliminary issues. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
8. res judicata and its application. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
9. witness credibility and evidence presentation. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
10. expert testimony and its necessity. (Para 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
11. concurrent liability in tort and contract. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99)
12. court's stance on concurrent claims. (Para 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)
13. causation and the bank's losses. (Para 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110)
14. legal firm's duty of care. (Para 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117)
15. breach of duty by the legal firm. (Para 118 , 119 , 120 , 121)
16. court's interpretation of the law. (Para 122 , 123 , 124)
17. solicitors' proactive duty to clients. (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131)
18. liability of partners in a firm. (Para 132 , 133 , 134)
19. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 135)
Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] "Law is order, and good law is good order." — Aristotle.

[2] In light of the above quote, the law is the most fundamental foundation of society, without which no society can function. As one aspect of achieving this, clients always need solicitors to protect and defend their interests, whether it is for their organisations or personal matters. Ultimately, one cannot exist without the other.

[3] The dispute before me arises from the above rationale. It emerges from an earlier relationship between the plaintiff as a financial institution ("hereinafter called the Bank") and the defendants ("hereinafter called the Solicitors/Legal Firm") who were partners in a law firm retained by the Bank to represent it and once served on the Bank's panel of lawyers.

[4] There are now allegations by the Bank that the Solicitors breached their contract and/or professional duties to it as well as negligently failed to protect the Bank's interests, which was the very purpose for which the Bank appointed the Legal Firm.

[5] To that end, the Bank seeks the following relief against the solicitors in this action:

(a) Damages in the sums of RM526,383.09;

(b) Damages to be assessed by the court;

(c) Interest on the damages awarded at 5% per annum from 4 April 2018 or from the date of the writ herein or the date of judgment or such date as the court deems fit until the date of full settlement;

(d) General damages; and

(e) Costs.

[6] As expected, the Solicitors vigorously resisted these allegations.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[7] As for the facts of the case, I must admit that they are not rather straightforward facts that led to the allegations by the Bank. Nevertheless, the parties' conduct in preparing the agreed facts is exemplary. In this regard, both parties have agreed on extensive facts during the Pre-Trial Case Management process.

[8] The following facts, on which I am heavily relying in making my decision, are reproduced with their agreement.

[9] The Bank is a licensed banking institution incorporated in Malaysia under the Financial Services Act 2013.

[10] The Solicitors were at all material times partners at the firm of advocates and solicitors known as Messrs Lua & Mansor with offices in Petaling Jaya, Selangor and Kota Bharu, Kelantan.

[11] In 1996, the Bank granted Sparrows & Arrows Sdn Bhd ("Sparrows") a term loan facility of RM1,200,000.00 (the "Facility") eviden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top