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)

Parties (6)

Case Significance

A bank's professional-negligence claim against a property valuer for overvaluation, turning on the Malaysian Valuation Standards requirement to disclose all registered transactions on title, including an auction price.

This High Court decision concerns a professional-negligence claim brought by a bank against a firm of property valuers, alleging that a negligent overvaluation of a property caused the bank loss. Banks rely on independent valuations to fix the security value against which they lend, so a valuation that overstates a property's worth can leave the lender under-secured when the borrower defaults and the security is realised for far less than the reported figure. The claim required the Court to examine the standard of care owed by a professional valuer to a lender that commissions or relies on the valuation, and whether that standard had been breached.

The core of the dispute lay in the application of the Malaysian Valuation Standards (MVS). The Court's reasoning turned on the principle that the MVS do not discriminate between different kinds of transaction: so long as a transaction has been registered on the title of the subject property at the land registry, it must be stated and disclosed in the valuation. In particular, where the property had previously been the subject of an auction, the auction price is a registered transaction that a competent valuer must take into account and disclose, rather than pass over in favour of a higher figure. A failure to disclose and weigh such a transaction goes directly to the reliability of the valuation and to the question of negligence.

The case thus placed the valuer's methodology under scrutiny against the professional standards that govern it, asking whether the omission of a relevant registered transaction — the auction price — from the valuation fell below the standard of a reasonably competent valuer and exposed the bank to the loss it claimed. The judgment is a useful illustration of the duty a valuer owes to a lending bank and of how the Malaysian Valuation Standards require all registered transactions on the title, including an auction price, to be disclosed in a valuation.

What did the bank allege against the valuer?

The bank brought a professional-negligence claim alleging that the valuer had negligently overvalued a property, leaving the bank under-secured and causing it loss when it lent against the reported value.

What did the Malaysian Valuation Standards require?

The Court reasoned that the Standards do not distinguish between types of transaction: any transaction registered on the property's title at the land registry, including an auction price, must be stated and disclosed in the valuation, and a failure to do so bears on the valuation's reliability and the question of negligence.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-22ncvc-51-03-2020)