Retiree wins RM1.2mil negligence suit against law firm over UK property scheme
Judge Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh ruled in favour of Leelawathy PT Singam, finding that the defendants had failed in their duty of care, which led to her suffering significant financial losses.
The defendants named in the suit are Tang Ching Yee, Loong Caesar, David Soong Tshon Li and Cara Yasmin Kamaruddin.
All are partners at Messrs. Raslan Loong, Shen & Eow (MRLSE) except for Cara Yasmin who left the firm on Feb 21, 2017.
According to court documents, Leelawathy in 2016 had engaged the defendants and instructed Tang, who at the material time was a practising solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales as well as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya, to act on her behalf.
This is after the plaintiff (Leelawathy) became interested in participating in an investment scheme involving residential units located in a student accommodation development known as the Scholar's Village along the Great Horton Road in Bradford, UK.
The structure of the investment scheme involved several interrelated companies which collectively formed what was referred to as the Alpha Group of Companies (Alpha Group).
The promotional materials presented to the plaintiff described the investment scheme as offering fixed rental returns of between eight per cent and 10 per cent per annum over a 10-year period.
Based on the legal advice by Tang, the plaintiff proceeded to purchase four residential units in the investment scheme amounted to £198,320. She received the rental returns as promised for two years.
However, in 2018, the rental payments began to decline and eventually ceased. Last year, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that the schemes marketed and sold by the Alpha Group constituted unregulated collective investment schemes (CIS).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants acted negligently by failing to advise her that the investment scheme could potentially constitute a CIS.
She said the defendants failed to inform her that the guaranteed rental returns were not legally enforceable and that contractual arrangements involved significant legal risks.
The defendants argued that their retainer was limited in scope as it did not extend to advising the plaintiff on commercial, financial or other non-legal risks arising from the contemplated transaction.
The defendants submitted that Tang acted in the capacity of a conveyancing solicitor and her professional responsibility was confined solely to the legal process of acquiring title to the four units.
However, the court was not persuaded by the defendants' arguments, noting that the scope of a solicitor's duty cannot be determined in a vacuum.
The judge said the defendants failed to advise the plaintiff of the legal risk that the investment scheme could constitute an unregulated CIS under the FSMA.
"The defendants also failed to explain the true nature, legal effect and associated risks of the contractual documents executed by the plaintiff.
"I find that these breaches materially influenced the plaintiff's decision to proceed with the investment. But for the defendants' failures, the plaintiff would not have entered into the transaction.
"As a direct consequence, the plaintiff suffered substantial financial loss," Ahmad Shahrir said in his ground of judgment dated May 22, this year.
The court said the four units have since depreciated in value to the point that they are now worth substantially less with no resale value.
He said the plaintiff continued to incur liabilities in the form of service charges and ground rent, despite the collapse of the investment and the cessation of any income stream.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Why are more wealthy mainland companies coming to Hong Kong for mediation?
An increasing number of wealthy mainland families have been opting to come to Hong Kong for mediation services to solve disputes instead of going to court, according to an expert. 'There is an increased demand for family mediation services in Hong Kong in recent years, particularly from [mainland] Chinese families,' said Ann Cooley, founder of Hong Kong-based Cooley Family Office, which has offered mediation services to help family offices handle their disputes for three decades. 'Hong Kong is going to benefit from such a trend because the city is an international mediation centre with many experts in this area,' Cooley said in an interview on Thursday. 'Being part of China and the Greater Bay Area means that many wealthy mainland families can take the high-speed train to travel to Hong Kong within an hour to meet their bankers to manage their wealth, as well as to find experts to resolve their family disputes,' she said. The hidden disputes of wealthy mainland families have come under the microscope recently with the legal battle surrounding the family of Zong Qinghou, the late founder of China's biggest beverage company, Hangzhou Wahaha Group, barely 12 months after his death. Three plaintiffs claiming to be his children sued chairwoman and CEO Kelly Zong Fuli in Hong Kong and Hangzhou in eastern Zhejiang province, demanding her to honour the late founder's will, which promised them trusts valued at US$700 million each. Before the lawsuit was filed, Kelly, 43, was known as the billionaire's only child. On Friday, the lawsuit by Jacky Zong Jicang, Jessie Zong Jiele and Jerry Zong Jisheng will come before the High Court in Hong Kong. Cooley said she believed similar court cases would be brought to Hong Kong, as many affluent families on the mainland had not prepared for a smooth transfer of wealth. 'We are living through an unprecedented wave of wealth transfer in Asia, particularly in mainland China, where first-generation entrepreneurs are passing the baton to the new generations,' she said. 'Many of these families have no experience in how to prepare for succession planning, which is why we are going to see more disputes in the years ahead.' Cooley said mediation was preferable to litigation because the cost was lower. Mediations allow for closed-door meetings to seek solutions that are accepted by all parties and there is no need for public disclosures. 'Mediation puts families in the driver's seat,' she said. 'I do not believe families should go to court unless it is the last resort.' In addition, many wealthy mainland families like to come to Hong Kong instead of litigating closer to home. 'These families do not want their friends in Beijing or Shanghai to know about their finances or their personal affairs,' Cooley said. 'Mediation can prevent their family matters from getting into the ess.' Some families use mediation to reach decisions on when and how to sell the family assets and how to move companies forward. 'Sometimes the younger generations want to use artificial intelligence or other technology in the operation of the companies, while the older generations want to do things in their own ways,' she said. 'Mediation can also help them find a solution.' And while court decisions had a stronger enforcement element, mediation agreements were reached voluntarily, which meant families were usually more committed to following through with them, she said. 'Most families are looking for harmonious outcomes rather than vengeful and destructive ones,' she said. 'That is why mediation, even without traditional enforcement power, often works better for keeping families together and moving forward.' - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
High Courts acquits two men of murder charge
Lawyers Datin Freda Sabapathy (left) and Sarawana Kumar together with the accused local Jaya Kandan Madachamy,47, (second left) and Sri Lankan Rathis Thas Ganapakiyam, 42. JOHOR BARU: Two men, including a local sales assistant, have been acquitted by the High Court in a murder case dating back six years, escaping the death penalty. Jaya Kandan Madachamy, 47, and Rathis Thas Ganapakiyam, 42, walked free without having their defence called. Rathis is a Sri Lankan national.
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
What is judicial mercy, and how does it apply to Ong Beng Seng's case?
Both the defence and the prosecution noted that a fine in lieu of jail would be appropriate as Ong Beng Seng has advanced multiple myeloma, which is an incurable cancer. - ST/ANN SINGAPORE: Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng pleaded guilty to one count of abetting the obstruction of justice on Aug 4. Both the defence and the prosecution noted that a fine in lieu of jail would be appropriate as he has advanced multiple myeloma, which is an incurable cancer. His lawyers urged the court to exercise judicial mercy and impose a fine with no prison time. The prosecution did not object to this, noting that even if the court did not exercise judicial mercy, there was basis for it to consider Ong's ill-health as a mitigating factor for a significant reduction of sentence. ALSO READ: Singapore-based Malaysian billionaire Ong Beng Seng pleads guilty to abetting obstruction of justice in case linked to ex-minister Iswaran What is judicial mercy? Judicial mercy is the discretionary power of Singapore's courts to give a more lenient sentence because of exceptional mitigating circumstances. It has a high threshold, and so far has been exercised in only two types of situations. The first is where the offender is suffering from terminal illness. The second is where the offender is so ill that jail time would carry a high risk of endangering his or her life. The High Court previously said that when judicial mercy is exercised, the central consideration by the court is not the culpability of the offender. Instead, the sentence will be based on humanitarian considerations. These must outweigh public interests in punishing the offender for his crime. This is distinctly different from when ill-health is considered as a mitigating factor. The High Court said judicial mercy is to be invoked only sparingly. Previous cases where it was invoked saw no imprisonment, or a nominal period of imprisonment, or the statutory minimum. Difference between judicial mercy and ill-health as mitigating factor Judicial mercy has a higher threshold than ill-health as a mitigating factor. When judicial mercy is invoked, the main consideration for sentencing becomes one of humanity. When the courts pass sentences with ill-health considered as a mitigating factor, the central consideration is still the public interest in punishing one for the offence committed. The punishment would remain proportional to the offender's culpability, but may be reduced at the discretion of the court. The courts have exercised judicial mercy in cases where the offender has not long left to live or when prison time would pose a significant risk to the offender's life. Cancer-stricken woman In 2020, the court fined a woman S$5,000 (US$3,885) instead of jailing her for a week for contempt of court. The mother of two had breached court orders relating to divorce proceedings with her former husband. She had turned her children on him and harmed his reputation. The court granted judicial mercy, noting that the woman had stage 4 breast cancer, was using a wheelchair and weighed only 30kg. Six months to live In 2018, a man who managed a coffee shop had a three-week prison sentence cut to a S$250 fine after he was diagnosed with cancer and given six months to live. Lam Kim Heng, then 68, had tried to bribe a building inspection officer with a pack of cigarettes. But three weeks after sentencing, he found out he had acute myeloid leukaemia. The High Court granted judicial mercy when it heard his appeal about three months after the diagnosis. Former Tangs chairman's kidney scandal In 2008, then Tangs chairman Tang Wee Sung was jailed for a day and fined S$17,000 for attempting to buy a kidney. He suffered from multiple medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease. Tang had to undergo dialysis six days a week, and had extremely detailed checks, injections and medication daily. The court granted him judicial mercy. Tang underwent a kidney transplant in 2009 and died in 2022. Molester with nose cancer In 2006, a convicted molester was granted judicial mercy on appeal and had his original sentence of four months' jail and three strokes of the cane replaced with a S$5,000 fine. Chng Yew Chin, then 43, had molested his maid. But he appealed and a doctor told the court he could not be cured and had little time left. The court granted him judicial mercy, saying his cancer was a far harsher sentence that would kill him in the near future. - The Straits Times/ANN
