W
Wan Azman Wan Ahma
Person 1 case
Wan Azman Wan Ahma appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-172-04-2018
MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD v 1. ) RUSSELL LUA KOK HIYONG 2. ) WAN MANSOR DATO' HJ WAN MOHAMED 3. ) WAN AZMAN WAN AHMA 4. ) LUA KOK TIN 5. ) YI FONG YING 6. ) NURJUVITA BINTI KAMARULZAMAN
MYHC 26 January 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Wan Azman Wan Ahma
Wan Azman Wan Ahma appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to January 2025. Wan Azman Wan Ahma appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Wan Azman Wan Ahma?
Wan Azman Wan Ahma appears in 1 published judgment from January 2025 to January 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
The dispute before the court arose from an earlier relationship between the plaintiff as a financial institution ("Bank") and the defendants ("Solicitors/Legal Firm") who were partners in a law firm retained by the Bank to represent it. 1 The Bank alleged that the Solicitors breached their contract and/or professional duties to it as well as negligently failed to protect the Bank’s interests, which was the very purpose for which the Bank appointed the Legal Firm. In relation to this, the Bank argued that it has a well-founded claim against the Solicitors for breach of contract and negligence for breach of their professional duties. According to the Bank, the Solicitors owed them a tortious duty of care, along with an additional contractual duty implied or expressly imposed on them. As a result, the Bank alleged that the Legal Firm and the Solicitors breached their duties, causing damage and loss to the Bank when the property assigned to the Bank under LACA was sold by the borrower to a third party. 1 As part of their arguments, the Solicitors argued that the Bank neglected to take certain actions which resulted in the Bank's own losses. As the Solicitors emphasised, the Bank had failed to comply with the LACA by not collecting the title from the Developer when it was issued in 2003. The Bank also failed to ensure that its previous solicitors charged the security to the Bank under the Power of Attorney conferred upon it by the borrower. 1 In this regard, the court found that based on the facts of the case, it appeared that despite the Bank having initially instructed its previous solicitors to register a land charge over the property when the strata title was issued, the Bank's instructions to register the land charge were superseded by the Bank's instructions to the Legal Firm to file a civil action against the borrower and its guarantors and to proceed with the sale of the property. These instructions had been in place since 16.2.2006 when the Legal Firm was appointed as the Bank's solicitors. 1 Further, the court found that the Legal Firm was aware at all material times that the strata title to the property was issued and held by the Developer and that the Developer had agreed to transfer the strata title when the Bank auctioned it. In this way, the Legal Firm could sell the property without registering a charge. 1 The court also found that a solicitor under a retainer is required to take pro-active steps to ensure he advises the client not only about matters where advice is specifically required, but also about matters that he may reasonably anticipate as a risk to the client if acting with reasonable skill and diligence. 1 The court also found that all defendants who were partners of the Legal Firm were jointly and severally liable for all the acts and omissions of the Legal Firm and/or any solicitor acting in the ordinary course of their business. As a result, all partners were responsible for the Bank's losses. 1 In light of the findings above, the Bank's claims against the Solicitors are allowed with costs. 1