OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v 1. ) Wong Yee Leck 2. ) Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahman 3. ) Rahim & Co. Chartered Surveyors Sdn. Bhd. 4. ) Loo Kung Hoe 5. ) RAHIM & CO (JOHOR) SDN. BHD
ja-22ncvc-51-03-2020 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 November 2025 • JA-22NCvC-51-03/2020 • 2 min read
Catchwords
Tort - professional negligence suit commenced by a bank against a property/estate valuer for overvaluing a property resulting a loss to the bank Malaysian Valuation Standards – MVA does not discriminate or distinguish the nature of the transaction - as long as it is a registered transaction on the subject property, it must be stated and disclosed in the valuation - the “registered transactions” in the MVS refers to all transactions registered on the title of the property by the land registry - the auction price of the subject property must be included in the valuation report to reflect the true market value of the property at that particular time - all details such as prices and encumbrances must be stated and disclosed clearly in the valuation report - it is not sufficient to just exhibit a title search and leave it to the reader to discern for himself - the annexture to the Valuation Report is clearly not the 5th Defendant’s statement or professional opinion but merely data from an external source Comparable sales - being a competent and prudent valuer, it is incumbent upon the 5th Defendant not only to disclose all registered transactions involving the subject property and comparables but to explain and analyse in great detail their price and value trending - this will enable the reader, the Plaintiff in this case to make a pivotal informed decision whether to proceed or not with the Loan transaction or to seek another formal opinion from another valuer Quantum of damages - the “but-for” test of causation must be satisfied for the claim for damages to succeed - whether the damages claimed by the Plaintiff would have occurred "but-for" the negligence or breach of duty of care by the 5th Defendant - the Plaintiff failed to prove that the 5th Defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the main or direct factor causing the loss suffered by the Plaintiff - the Plaintiff also failed to justify why the 5th Defendant is liable to pay the shortfall of the Loan as the Plaintiff still has the chance to recover it from Tai Hock Seng through a separate legal action - it is blatantly unfair to put the entire blame on the 5th Defendant and order the valuer alone to bear the balance outstanding - the Loan was for Tai Hock Seng’s own benefit and he had breached the Loan contract - the only mistake of the 5th Defendant was the valuer overvalued the Property and it is gravely unjust for the valuer be punished with the order to pay the entire shortfall.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v 1. ) Wong Yee Leck 2. ) Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahma... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 25, 2025 (citation: ja-22ncvc-51-03-2020). The case was decided by Shamsulbahri bin Haji Ibrahim.
Key issues: Tort - professional negligence suit commenced by a bank against a property/estate valuer for overvaluing a property resulting a loss to the bank.
What was the outcome of OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v 1. ) Wong Yee Leck 2. ) Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahma...?
OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v 1. ) Wong Yee Leck 2. ) Abdul Rahim Abdul Rahma... is a High Court decision dated November 25, 2025. The case was heard by Shamsulbahri bin Haji Ibrahim. See the full judgment for details.