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 vehicle inspected by PUSPAKOM, obtaining a B5 Certificate confirming its genuine condition. Relying on this certification, the respondent approved the hire purchase financing.

[4] However, on 28 December 2015, the vehicle was seized by the Road Transport Department on suspicion of tampered engine and chassis numbers. A chemical report dated 8 January 2016 confirmed that the vehicle was stolen and linked to an earlier police report in 2013. Following this discovery, the appellant initiated a lawsuit against the respondent on 29 August 2019, alleging negligence for financing a stolen car without proper verification.

[5] In response, the respondent contended that all rights, liabilities, and obligations under the hire purchase agreement had been transferred to Aiqon Amanah Sdn Bhd ("Aiqon Amanah") via a Sale and Purchase Agreement on 3 January 2019, followed by a vesting order dated 19 February 2019. Consequently, the respondent argued that it was no longer liable for the appellant's claim. The Sessions Court struck out the appellant's claim under O 14A and O 33 rr 2 and 5 of the Rules of 2012, leading to the 1st appeal (AA-12ANCC-1-01/2024).

[6] Separately, the respondent had initiated third-party proceedings against:

a) Tan Siew Hoon and Ong Keng Hoe (TP1 & TP2), the sellers of the vehicle,

b) PUSPAKOM Sdn Bhd (TP3), which issued the B5 Certificate, and

c) The Director of the Perak Road Transport Department (TP4), responsible for maintaining vehicle registration records.

[7] The respondent argued that these third parties played a role in verifying the vehicle's genuineness and should bear responsibility. However, the Sessions Court struck out the third-party notices. The respondent then filed the 2nd appeal (AA-12ANCC-2-01/2024), contending that the dismissal was erroneous.

Issues For Determination

[8] The Court is to determine the following issues:

a) Whether the appellant has a valid cause of action against the respondent in light of the vesting order.

b) Whether the Sessions Court Judge erred in striking out the appellant's claim under O 14A and/or O 33 rr 2 and 5 of the Rules of 2012.

c) Whether the third-party proceedings is sustainable and should continue despite the main claim being struck out.

Issue 1: Whether The Appellant Has Valid Cause Of Action Against The Respondent

[9] The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a valid cause of action against the respondent, in light of the vesting order dated 19 February 2019. The respondent asserts that all rights, liabilities, and obligations concerning the appellant's loan account were transferred to Aiqon Amanah through a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3 January 2019 and a Supplemental Agreement dated 30 August 2019. Clause 8 and 8.6 in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3 Jan