1. ) MOHANNA A/L RENGASAMY 2. ) THE LAW OFFICE OF MOHANNA & CO. v KRISHNA KUMAR A/L KALIANAN
Catchwords
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal- Whether appellate court should interfere with findings of fact-Whether Sessions Court Judge had erred in principle, misapprehended facts, or failed to take into consideration relevant facts in arriving at decision, thus warranting appellate interference TORT: Negligence-Professional negligence-Respondent appointed appellants as solicitors for sale and purchase of property-Transaction failed-Respondent initially claimed against vendors but lost his claim-Respondent discovered several documents prepared by appellants were inconsistent, inaccurate, and irregular-Respondent sued appellants for professional negligence-Sessions Court found in favour of Respondent-Whether Sessions Court Judge erred by not requiring expert evidence to establish applicable standard of care-Whether Sessions Court Judge had disregarded binding precedents and misapplied the law-Effect of electing no case to answer-Whether negligence was proven on balance of probabilities
Practice Areas
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal- Whether appellate court should interfere with findings of fact-Whether Sessions Court Judge had erred in principle, misapprehended facts, or failed to take into consideration relevant facts in arriving at decision, thus warranting appellate interference TORT: Negligence-Professional negligence-Respondent appointed appellants as solicitors for sale and purchase of property-Transaction failed-Respondent initially claimed against vendors but lost his claim-Respondent discovered several documents prepared by appellants were inconsistent, inaccurate, and irregular-Respondent sued appellants for professional negligence-Sessions Court found in favour of Respondent-Whether Sessions Court Judge erred by not requiring expert evidence to establish applicable standard of care-Whether Sessions Court Judge had disregarded binding precedents and misapplied the law-Effect of electing no case to answer-Whether negligence was proven on balance of probabilities
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) MOHANNA A/L RENGASAMY 2. ) THE LAW OFFICE OF MOHANNA & CO. v KRISHNA KUM... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated May 14, 2025 (citation: ba-12b-50-05-2024). The case was decided by Jamhirah binti Ali.
What was the outcome of 1. ) MOHANNA A/L RENGASAMY 2. ) THE LAW OFFICE OF MOHANNA & CO. v KRISHNA KUM...?
1. ) MOHANNA A/L RENGASAMY 2. ) THE LAW OFFICE OF MOHANNA & CO. v KRISHNA KUM... is a High Court decision dated May 14, 2025. The case was heard by Jamhirah binti Ali. See the full judgment for details.