Reported Case

The Plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant, a legal practitioner, alleging professional negligence in the conduct of a civil suit previously undertaken by the Defendant on the Plaintiff's behalf.
The Court decided that the Defendant had been negligent in undertaking the civil suit for the Plaintiff.
A key finding was the rejection of the Defendant's argument that the plaintiff's subsequent failure to appeal the original case could be considered an intervening event sufficient to discharge the Defendant from liability. The Court emphasized that the initial act of negligence by the Defendant remained undisturbed by the Plaintiff's decision not to appeal.
The Court also distinguished and found inapplicable the Defendant's reliance on a previous case concerning settlement, reiterating that the reasoning in that case could not be utilized to absolve the Defendant in the current proceedings.
As a result of the established negligence, the Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff nominal damages of RM20,000.00, with interest accruing at 5% per annum from the date of the order until full realization.
(Puvarasan & Associates for the Plaintiff)

The Claimant sought redress for his dismissal by the Company on 31 October 2019, alleging unjust dismissal.
The Industrial Court found that the Company had failed to prove the Claimant's alleged misconduct or poor performance, and therefore, the dismissal was without just cause or excuse.
The Court rejected the Company's reliance on certain allegations, finding that they were not supported by sufficient evidence or were not properly investigated or put to the Claimant.
In determining the award, the Court considered the Claimant's last drawn salary, the period of unemployment, and the principle of proportionality of punishment.
The Court awarded backwages for a period of ten months, with a deduction for post-earnings and a further 10% deduction reflecting a proportionality of punishment.
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement was also awarded, calculated at one month's salary for every completed year of service.
(Puvarasan & Associates for the Claimant)

The Plaintiff, acting for himself and as a representative of the Unit Owners of Paragon 3 apartment, brought a claim against the developer (1st Defendant) for breaches of contractual obligations.
The 1st Defendant applied to the Court to strike out the entire suit, arguing that the Plaintiff’s action was not properly constituted as a Representative Action under Order 15 rule 12(1).
The key issue determined by this court is whether the representative action was valid, given that the claims involved different sale and purchase agreement dates and potentially different amounts owed to each unit owner.
The High Court held that the criteria for a valid representative action were satisfied: the unit owners belonged to the same class, shared a common grievance, and the relief sought was beneficial to all members, regardless of variations in individual claims.
The Court found the Defendant’s striking out application to be without merit. The application was dismissed with costs of RM3,000, thereby allowing the unit owners’ substantial claim against the developer to proceed to trial.

(Puvarasan & Associates for the Plaintiff)

The Plaintiff (a property developer) claimed that a Joint Venture Partnership (JVP) existed with the Defendants (a group of unit purchasers) and demanded RM80,000,000.00 for alleged loss of anticipated profit.
The Defendants, who were simultaneously pursuing a separate contractual action against the Plaintiff (developer), contested the JVP and the massive claim for damages.
The High Court held that the Plaintiff failed to adduce credible evidence and material witnesses to prove the existence of the alleged Joint Venture Partnership.
The Court further found that the Plaintiff failed to justify the computation of the staggering RM80 million loss of anticipated profit with substantial evidence.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's entire claim was without basis and ordered the Plaintiff’s suit to be struck out with costs. The Court affirmed that the Defendants had the locus standi to pursue their separate claim against the developer regarding contractual breaches.

(Puvarasan & Associates for the Defendants)

06 - 794 7480 || 012 - 441 7119
general@puvarasanassociates.com