TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES

Organisation 1 case

About TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES

TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning December 2025 to December 2025. TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES?

TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES appears in 1 published judgment from December 2025 to December 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).

Practice Areas

This consolidated judgment addresses five striking-out applications in a professional negligence and fraud claim arising from a 2015 land purchase. The Plaintiffs purchased land for RM4 million and later discovered a caveat alleging fraud. After losing in Suit 480 (where the High Court declared their title null and void on 25 March 2019, a decision affirmed by the appellate courts), they filed the present action on 13 May 2025 against their solicitors, the vendor's solicitors, the bank's solicitors, and the vendor's directors. The Court held that all claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953. The cause of action accrued on 25 March 2019, when actual damage crystallised in the High Court's adverse judgment, not on 23 April 2024, when the Federal Court dismissed leave to appeal. The six-year limitation period under s 6(1)(a) expired on 25 March 2025; the three-year extended period under s 6A expired on 25 March 2022. The fraud claim under s 29(1)(a) was also barred, as discovery occurred in February 2016 (caveat) or, at the latest, 25 March 2019 (judgment). The Court rejected the argument that the limitation should be suspended pending appeals, citing Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Kamarstone Sdn Bhd, which held that the limitation runs from the earliest actionable moment. Claims against the 8th and 9th Defendants were further barred by res judicata, having been litigated and dismissed in Suit 480. Claims against the vendor's solicitors were also found to have no reasonable cause of action under Pushpaleela, as they owed no duty to adverse parties. All claims were struck out as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. 1 Limitation Act 1953; striking out; time-barred; cause of action; res judicata; fraud; abuse of process; appellate rights; land transaction; caveat; indefeasible title 1

Defendant (1)

wa-22ncvc-294-05-2025 MYHC

1. ) BOBSON ONG DIN KOK 2. ) ONG DINSON 3. ) POH KOK ANN 4. ) POH THIAM KAR 5. ) POH THIAM SEONG v 1. ) TETUAN IVAN HO & ASSOCIATES 2. ) IVAN HO TIONG YIN 3. ) KENNETH GODFREY GOMES 4. ) TETUAN SABARUDIN OTHMAN & HO 5. ) CYNTHIA YONG MON TING 6. ) TETUAN LEE SHARON & ASSOCIATES 7. ) PUBLIC ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 8. ) HAU MUN MENG 9. ) LEE CHEE HUENG

7 December 2025