2020 MarsdenLR 1956
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ANUAR ROZHAN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
WEALTH MENTORS SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCVC-9-01-2017]
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Torts
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Negligent misstatement – The Court reaffirmed that for a negligent misstatement claim to succeed, the claimant must prove the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty, and that the breach caused the alleged losses – The Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a special relationship with the Defendant. (Paras 63-67, 103)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiffs, Malaysian citizens, invested in a housing project based on representations made by the Defendant at a seminar – The Defendant denied making the representations, asserting that it was merely organizing seminars. (Paras 1-3, 8, 9, 12)
Findings of Court: The Plaintiffs did not prove the Defendant made the misstatements as pleaded, nor establish the existence of a duty of care or causation linking the Defendant to their alleged losses. (Paras 62-102)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs and if the Plaintiffs suffered losses due to the Defendant's actions. (Paras 27, 50)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court stressed that a mere relationship of trust or repeated attendance at events does not automatically create a legal duty – The Defendant had taken precautions to clarify its role at the seminars. (Paras 62-72, 103)
Result: The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims and awarded costs of RM50,000 to the Defendant. (Paras 103)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] 22 Plaintiffs as above named filed this civil suit which is premised on the alleged negligent misstatements made by the Defendant through its Chief Executive Officer, Mr Aaron Sim Chin Chye [Defendant's Witness ('DW') 1] and its representatives at a seminar held in mid- 2013 where the Defendant had introduced a project known as "Bosque Residencial Project Brazil" at No Lugar Guajiru, Sao Goncalo do Amarante, Rio Grande Do Norte ('said Project'), constructed by the EcoHouse Group, to the Plaintiffs.
[2] The Plaintiffs entered into Sale and Purchase Agreements ('SPA') with the vendor cum developer, EcoHouse Brazil Construcoes Ltda, a company incorporated in Brazil ('Developer'), and Escrow Agreements with Derrick Wong & Lim BC LLP ('Escrow Agent'), a legal firm in Singapore on different dates in 2013 for the purchase of their respective units in the said Project.
[3] Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs did not obtain the return on their investments as they had expected and thus, the present claim for, inter alia, the purchase price of the units which the Plaintiffs had invested in the said Project.
[4] After hearing the testimony of 21 witnesses for the Plaintiff and 3 witnesses for the Defendant over the course of 10 days of trial from 18 February 2019 until 14 June 2019 and having considered the same together with the pleadings, documentary evidence and written submissions, the Plaintiffs claim was dismissed with costs of RM50,000.00 to the Defendant, subject to allocator.
[5] These are my full reasons for the decision.
Salient Background Facts
[6] Based on the pleadings and Case Summaries filed by the parties, the facts leading to this suit is fairly straightforward.
[7] The Plaintiffs are Malaysian citizens, who at the time of filing of the Writ and Statement of Claim ('SOC') were residing in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan. The Plaintiffs come from diverse background but they have one thing in common, and that is they have attended the Defendant's events at least once before the seminar in which investment opportunities in the said Project was allegedly promoted by the Defendant.
[8] In that fateful seminar, the Defendant had purportedly, through DW1 and its representatives, made certain representations about the said Project, including that it was underwritten by the Government of Brazil to enable those in the middle and lower income groups to own their own houses.
[9] In reliance on the alleged representations, the Plaintiffs had registered their interest in purchasing one or more units in the said Project by filling up the Reservation Forms provided by representatives from the EcoHouse Group Singapore, a company which, according to DW1, was set up by the Developer to promote, and to deal with potential and confirmed investors of, the said Project within the Asian region.
[10] The Reservation Forms state that those who submit their details will be given a Due Diligence Information Pack via e-mail. This Pack contains the frequently asked questions videos, due diligence documents, newspaper articles and sample contracts. The Reservation Forms additionally state that an appointment can be made to see the representatives from the EcoHouse Group to answer any questions that potential investors may have about the said Project and the important clauses in the contracts.
[11] The Plaintiffs subsequently entered into the respective SPA with the Developer and the Escrow Agreements with the Escrow Agent. DW1 himself, and his family members, bought 16 units in the said Project at a total purchase price of S$736,000.00.
[12] However, the Developer as vendor, failed to transfer or deliver any of the units or properties which were purchased by the Plaintiffs, and DW1 and his family.
[13] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant is premised upon the tort of negligent misstatement, the particulars of which are as pleaded in para 36 of the SOC as re-produced below:
"36. Setelah memasuki perjanjian jual b