THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

caused them financial loss as they could not move in into the industrial buildings that they had purchased and to commence their business operations. The respondents allege that this delay was due to the professional negligence on the part of the appellants. At the High Court the learned High Court Judge made a peculiar finding: he found the appellants liable in negligence, but, only to the extent of 50%. However, we will say more of this peculiarity later at the end of this judgment. He ordered damages to be assessed. The learned High Court Judge made a finding that there was a breach of duty of care on the part of the appellants, as the architects of the project, by reason of – (a) being negligent in the preparation of the original layout plan such that the original layout plan had to be amended; and 12
(b) the refusal on the part of the appellants, as the architects of the project, to apply for the CFOs. According to the learned Judge, the combined effect of facts (a) and (b) above resulted in a substantial delay in the obtaining of the CFOs for the industrial buildings purchased by the plaintiffs. The appellants appealed to this Court. At the trial of the action at the High Court of Penang, the appellants were the second and third defendants (therefore, in this judgment, the appellants will be referred to as the ‘defendants’); whilst the company, Rakyat Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (which we have mentioned earlier) was the first defendant. Before the trial could commence, the first defendant (Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd) was wound up pursuant to section 218 of the Companies Act 1965 by the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) via a winding-up petition presented by a company called Kumpulan GMC Enterprise Sdn Bhd. But the plaintiffs obtained leave 13
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Defendants (1) Rakyat
Page 5 and 6: (Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd) to be
Page 7 and 8: The Vendor shall do all acts and th
Page 9 and 10: y the vendor failing which the vend
Page 11: developer proceeded to construct th
Page 15 and 16: architects for the project, resulti
Page 17 and 18: CFOs under the SPA. As the learned
Page 19 and 20: … speak, short circuiting the con
Page 21 and 22: 4 CLJ 508 (but see now the Federal
Page 23 and 24: The above proposition was cited wit
Page 25 and 26: From the evidence in this case, I f
Page 27 and 28: consequences. The case law authorit
Page 29 and 30: First one has to ask whether, as be
Page 31 and 32: which ought to negative, or to redu
Page 33 and 34: contemplate would be affected by hi
Page 35 and 36: ‘neighbourhood’ and that the si
Page 37 and 38: certainly owe a duty of care to the
Page 39 and 40: 128 ALR 163), New Zealand (for exam
Page 41 and 42: that the layout plan necessitated e
Page 43 and 44: Peculiarity of High Court’s Order
Page 45: Date of decision: 5 January 2012 Da

THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?