TETUAN WOON WEE YUEN & PARTNERS v TEGUH ASIAMAS SDN. BHD.

j-01imncvc-44-01-2025 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 5 February 2026 • J-01(IM)(NCvC)-44-01/2025 • 11 min read
2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

TETUAN WOON WEE YUEN & PARTNERS v TEGUH ASIAMAS SDN. BHD. is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated February 5, 2026 (citation: j-01imncvc-44-01-2025). <p>A law firm (Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners), found liable for approximately RM15 million in professional negligence arising from a fraudulent land transaction, sought an interim stay of execution pending appeal. The key issue was whether the conditional stay order requiring payment of 50% of the judgment sum to solicitors as stakeholders should be stayed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the stakeholder arrangement adequately protected both parties, and granted 60 days The panel comprised Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin, Choo Kah Sing and Lee Swee Seng, with Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Johanan A. Puthucheary (counsel for appellant), Lau Kee Sern (counsel for respondent), Lim Stew Ling (counsel for appellant), Vynny Wong Poh Yee (counsel for respondent).

Summary

A law firm (Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners), found liable for approximately RM15 million in professional negligence arising from a fraudulent land transaction, sought an interim stay of execution pending appeal. The key issue was whether the conditional stay order requiring payment of 50% of the judgment sum to solicitors as stakeholders should be stayed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the stakeholder arrangement adequately protected both parties, and granted 60 days for compliance with the conditional stay order.

What was the outcome of TETUAN WOON WEE YUEN & PARTNERS v TEGUH ASIAMAS SDN. BHD.?

<p>A law firm (Tetuan Woon Wee Yuen & Partners), found liable for approximately RM15 million in professional negligence arising from a fraudulent land...

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (2)

UK (1)
[1908] 2 KB 114
MY (1)
[2004] 1 MLJ 257