The plaintiff failed to prove actual loss or damage caused by the defendant's alleged negligence, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 1)

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] The parties in this suit are legal firms registered under the Legal Profession Act 1976 .

[2] The plaintiff's action against the defendant is premised on breach of contract and professional negligence, claiming:

(1) their purported loss of a right to pursue an action against the defendants in Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-208-04-2018 (Suit 208); and

(2) their purported right to recover their claim in Suit 208 against the named defendants.

2.1 The list of witnesses at the trial is as follows:

(1) Plaintiff's witnesses:

(i) PW1 Datin Jamilah binti Abu Bakar

(ii) PW2 Ammar bin Ghalip

(2) Defendant's witnesses:

(i) SD1 Tengku Haris bin Tengku Rostam

(ii) SD2 Harjinder Singh a/l Saudagar Singh

2.2 On 31 January 2024, after considering the facts, all the cause papers, the totality of the evidence adduced at the trial, and the parties' respective arguments, on the balance of probabilities, I found no merit in the plaintiff's suit against the defendant. I dismissed it with a cost of RM25,000.00 to be paid within 30 days.

2.3 Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal against my decision, and these are my reasons.

Brief Facts

[3] Parties have filed agreed facts, and in narrating the brief facts, I will also refer to a series of correspondences and documents available before me. In examining the evidence at the trial, I found as follows:

3.1 Both are law firms duly registered under the Legal Profession Act 1976 .

3.2 The defendant:

(1) Had represented the plaintiff in a civil recovery suit in KL HC Suit No: WA-22NCVC-208-04-2018 (Suit 208) against its former partners and legal assistants for alleged breach of fiduciary duty (under billing, concealment, non-billing, noncollection of billing of one particular client: Prosper Group of Companies) resulting in suspected losses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff founded their action against the former partners and associates under:

(a) Breach of fiduciary duties.

(b) Conspiracy to cause loss of profit and damages to the plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff discovered this alleged breach in July 2017 after carrying out an internal audit on work related to the former partners/legal assistants (Dato' Tan Bing Hua, Susie Lim Chuan Tin, Norazlina Binti Idris, and Neik Chi Ngu).

(3) In Suit 208, it was alleged that the client's personnel conspired with the plaintiff's former partners/legal assistants.

3.3 The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, in undertaking this civil recovery suit, must ensure that the plaintiff is well informed of the suit's progress and render the appropriate advice pertinent to the circumstances. They are to prosecute Suit 208 for the plaintiff to its conclusion diligently.

3.4 The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had caused Suit 208 to be struck out by the High Court for incompliance with the timeline to provide further and better particulars to the former partners/legal assistants in Suit 208 secured through the Consent Orders before the Court. The timeline requirement by the High Court came with an unless order.

3.5 Because the plaintiff failed to meet the Court-ordered deadline, the Court enforced the unless order on 18 April 2019 and struck out Suit 208 without hearing the merits of the plaintiff's suit.

3.6 The plaintiff claimed that:

(1) The defendant had agreed to the consent orders for further and better particulars by the former partners/legal assistants without the plaintiff's prior mandate.

(2) The defendant never disclosed the consent orders to the plaintiff and failed to inform about the unless order.

(3) The defendant had five months' access to the specific prayers sought by the former partners/legal assistants before entering the consent orders. They should have had the materials ready by then to comply with them.

(4) The plaintiff only found out Suit 208 was struck out when told by the defendant sometime on 18 April 2019 that Suit 208 had been struck out for in default of complying with the consent orders, but was adv