JUDGMENT

Moses Susayan JC:

Introduction

[1] This case concerns a dispute arising from a hire purchase vehicle gone wrong. The appellant, having purchased a car through hire purchase from the respondent bank, later discovered that the car was stolen. Alleging negligence, he sued the respondent bank for failing to ensure the vehicle's genuineness before approving the financing. The respondent, however, contended that all rights and liabilities had been transferred to another entity under a vesting order, absolving it of any responsibility. Simultaneously, the respondent initiated third-party proceedings against various other entities involved in the verification process, arguing that they should bear liability.

[2] The two key issues for determination are whether the respondent remained liable despite the vesting order and whether the third-party claims were sustainable and could proceed independently.

Background Facts

[3] On 6 September 2013, the appellant, Mohd Hafizuddin bin Mohd Khar, entered into a hire purchase agreement with respondent, AmBank (M) Berhad, to finance a Honda Civic S i-VTEC (A) 2.0i (registration number WUV 2939). Before finalising the agreement, the appellant had the