VENU NAIR & ANOR vs PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 2141

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VENU NAIR & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC BANK BERHAD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. facts of the case led to a claim of negligence against the partners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellants challenged execution based on their liability under partnership law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. court's observations on liability and prior decisions (Para 19 , 20)
4. court concluded partners are jointly liable, permitting judgment enforcement. (Para 21 , 22 , 24)

Per Zaleha Yusof JCA:

[1] The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff in the main suit before the High Court. The defendant in the main suit was a legal firm known as Paul Cheah & Associates (the said firm).

[2] The appellants in this appeal were partners of the said firm.

[3] The respondent had appointed the said firm to be their solicitor to prepare the loan security documentation for a loan to one Polyidaman Sdn Bhd (Polyidaman). As a security for the loan, Polyidaman had duly executed a charge under the National Land Code over its property in favour of the respondent.

[4] However, when Polyidaman defaulted on its loan, the respondent discovered that the charge had been discharged and the property had been transferred to a third person and that the same property was now charged to CIMB Bank B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 2141

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAVENU NAIR & ANOR – AppellantVersusPUBLIC BANK BERHAD – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VENU NAIR & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC BANK BERHAD – Respondent