JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] This complaint relates to allegations of professional negligence by advocates and solicitors.

[2] The complaint involves fraud which was masterfully orchestrated by the 4th Defendant as the trusted person in the company of the 1st Defendant. It seemed that the transactions were above board, but in fact, they were not. There will be more to the story soon.

[3] This has resulted in the purchasers bringing this civil action against, amongst others, the 9th to 12th Defendants for alleged negligence in executing their duties without sufficient due diligence in five (5) sale and purchase transactions involving five (5) units of a condominium project known as the Damai Vista Project.

Case Facts: An Overview

[4] The plaintiffs are purchasers of five (5) condominiums developed by the 1st Defendant.

[5] The 1st Defendant is the developer of the Damai Vista Project.

[6] At the time of the dispute, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were directors of the 1st Defendant.

[7] The 4th Defendant was the chief operating officer ("COO") for the 1st Defendant. His uncles are the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

[8] The 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants practice as advocates and solicitors under the name of the 8th Defendant. The 8th Defendant was the legal firm responsible for preparing the sale and purchase agreements.

[9] The 9th, 10th and 11th Defendants are advocates and solicitors practising under the name of the 12th Defendant. They represented the plaintiffs in the transactions with the 1st Defendant regarding such sales and purchases.

[10] The story began when the 1st Plaintiff walked into the sales gallery of the Damai Vista Project. As a result, the 1st Plaintiff was attracted to the sales representations made by the 4th Defendant, including, but not limited to, the cash purchase sales rebate.

[11] Due to this, the 1st Plaintiff recommended the Damai Vista Project to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs.

[12] The 4th Defendant then invited the plaintiffs to purchase five (5) units developed by the 1st Defendant and began making representations about Damai Vista.

[13] In his representations, the 4th Defendant stated:

(a) In accordance with the Letter of Authorisation dated 1 March 2017, the 1st Defendant authorised the 4th Defendant to handle all matters related to the sale of the units in the Damai Vista Project.

(b) If the plaintiffs used the 1st Defendant's panel solicitors, they did not have to pay any legal fees.

(c) A RM380,000.00 cash rebate promotion was offered by the 4th Defendant on units allocated by the 1st Defendant.

(d) It was only valid if the allocated units were purchased in cash at RM300,000.00 each.

(e) He was responsible for opening up new markets for the 1st Defendant.

[14] Following that, the plaintiffs selected and signed the booking forms for the following Damai Vista Project units:

(a) The 1st Plaintiff: B-23-03 and A-18-10;

(b) The 2nd Plaintiff: A-13-01;

(c) The 3rd Plaintiff: A-21-10; and

(d) The 4th Plaintiff: A-1-08.

[15] In order to manage and complete the purchase transactions, the plaintiffs appointed the 9th to 12th Defendants to coordinate with the 1st and 4th Defendants and the 1st Defendant's panel lawyer, the 8th Defendant.

[16] Following completion of the necessary process, the plaintiffs signed the sale and purchase agreements for Damai Vista Project units at the office of the 9th to 12th Defendants.

[17] Thereafter, the plaintiffs paid the 4th Defendant for the purchase prices. The 1st Plaintiff paid RM600,000.00 in cash, the 2nd Plaintiff paid RM300,000.00 in cash, the 3rd Plaintiff paid RM300,000.00 in cash and the 4th Plaintiff paid RM350,000.00 in cash.

[18] As a confirmation of their purchase, the 1st Defendant issued the plaintiffs with official receipts and rebate entitlements.

[19] Afterwards, there was no further news on vacant possession, which prompted the plaintiffs to inquire further.

[20] As a result of checking, the plaintiffs found that the ownership of the purchased units had not bee