JUDGMENT

Gunalan Muniandy J:

[1] This is a suit based on a Sale and Purchase Agreement ('SPA') of a property, a building referred to in the SPA as a multipurpose hall in a 24-storey building in the Mukim of Damansara, District of Petaling, Selangor, entered into between the plaintiff and the Developer.

Background Of Claim

[2] The material facts relied upon by the plaintiff and his cause of action have been adequately summarised in his counsel's written submission as follows:

"On 12 June 2013, the plaintiff as a purchaser and a company known as Link Ventures Sdn Bhd ('Developer') as vendor executed a Sale and Purchase Agreement ('SPA') for the purchase of a multipurpose hall at Level 17 of the 24-storey building known as Menara Rajawali ('Property'). The purchase price is RM2,000,000.00 ('Purchase Price').

The Developer engaged the services of the 7th Defendant to prepare the said SPA for the plaintiff and the Developer's execution.

At all material times, one Madam Foo Foong Leng ('Deceased FL Foo') was an advocate & solicitor and a partner practicing in the 7th defendant.

The Deceased FL Foo had, in her professional capacity and on behalf of the 7th defendant, prepared the said SPA on the instructions of the Developer and had further advised the plaintiff in relation to the terms and conditions contained in the SPA before the same was finalised and executed.

The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants at all material times were advocates & solicitors and partners practising in the 7th defendant.

Upon finalisation of the terms and conditions of the SPA, the plaintiff and the Developer executed the SPA wherein the Deceased FL Foo witnessed the Developer's execution of the SPA. The 7th defendant is identified as the Designated Solicitor under the said SPA.

On 13 June 2013, upon the advice of the said Deceased FL Foo, the plaintiff performed his obligation under the said SPA and transferred the full Purchase Price sum of RM2,000,000.00 into the 7th defendant's client's account.

The 7th defendant, as the designated solicitors for the SPA, had expressly and/or impliedly undertaken the following obligations:

(i) to hold the Purchase Price which was paid by the plaintiff to the 7th defendant for or on behalf of the Developer;

(ii) to release the Purchase Price to the Developer as and when it became due and payable;

(iii) not to release or utilise the Purchase Price for any other purpose save and except as provided for in the SPA;

(iv) to maintain and keep the Purchase Price within its care, control and custody for the best interests of the plaintiff ; and

(v) to ensure that the Purchase Price is only released to the Developer in accordance with the terms of the SPA.

the plaintiff had placed utmost reliance on the advice, representations and recommendations by the 7th defendant being solicitors for the SPA.

the plaintiff subsequently discovered that the 7th Defendant had failed, refused and/or neglected to pay, release and/or transfer the Purchase Price to the Developer.

On 10 September 2013, the Developer issued a letter to the 7th defendant informing them that the Developer had failed to receive the full Purchase Price of RM2,000,000.00 which was transferred to the 7th Defendant's clients account on 13 June 2013.

By failing to pay, release and/or transfer the Purchase Price of the premise to the Developer, the Deceased FL Foo, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants were thereby alleged to have been negligent and were in breach of their duty.

The conduct of the Deceased FL Foo, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants has caused loss and damage to the plaintiff , inter alia, in the following manner:

(i) the plaintiff has been deprived of possession of the property;

(ii) the plaintiff's credibility, creditworthiness and financial standing have been affected;

(iii) the plaintiff has incurred a loss of RM500,000.00 being the appreciation value of the property from the date of purchase to the current date; and

(iv) the plaintiff has been deprived of the sum of RM19,500.00 per mont