XXXX v 1. ) ERNST & YOUNG 2. ) XXXX 3. ) SJ ASSET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD
29 cases cited
(0 SG, 29 foreign)
Catchwords
TORT: Professional Negligence – Statutory auditor's liability to third-party investors – Duty of care – Pure economic loss – Whether a statutory auditor owes a common law duty of care to third-party investors in a fund management company – Whether sufficient proximity exists between auditor and investors through voluntary assumption of responsibility and actual reliance – Whether passive or indirect reliance on audit reports is sufficient to establish proximity – Whether foreseeability of investor loss, without more, is sufficient to establish a duty of care – Whether an auditor's express disclaimer of third-party responsibility in its audit reports negates any assumption of responsibility to investors – Whether the size and indeterminate composition of a class of potential claimants supports or militates against the imposition of a duty of care – Whether the Caparo three-fold test applies with heightened stringency in cases of pure economic loss – Whether the Australian concept of "vulnerability" ought to be adopted in Malaysia as a basis for establishing proximity in pure economic loss claims – Whether sophisticated investors who had contractual means to verify their investments but elected not to do so can claim vulnerability TORT: Professional Negligence – Standard of care and breach – Auditing standards – Whether the burden of proving breach of the applicable standard of care lies with the plaintiff in professional negligence proceedings – Whether expert evidence on the applicable standard is necessary for a plaintiff to discharge that burden – Whether an expert who did not review the defendant auditor's working papers is competent to assess the adequacy of that auditor's work – Whether an expert applying a self-invented standard rather than Malaysian Approved Standard on Auditing ("MASA") can discharge the plaintiff's burden of proof – Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in cases of professional negligence – Whether failure to detect a sophisticated fraud involving collusion and forged documents constitutes a breach of the auditing standard of care – Whether an expert witness subject to a success fee arrangement retains the independence required under Order 40A of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether prior regulatory sanctions by a securities regulator are relevant to the credibility and suitability of an expert witness opining on audit standards TORT: Professional Negligence – Causation – Whether the "but for" test is satisfied where plaintiffs invested on the basis of the fund manager's reputation and regulatory licensing, and not in reliance on the auditor's opinions – Whether an intervening fraud perpetrated by the fund manager's management constitutes a novus actus interveniens breaking the causal chain between the auditor's alleged breach and the investors' losses – Whether investors' losses arising from fraudulent misappropriation of client funds fall within the scope of the statutory auditor's duty of care – Applicability of the SAAMCo scope of duty principle to auditor's liability for investor losses – Whether the concurrent failure of multiple regulators and independent parties to detect a sophisticated fraud negates negligence on the part of the auditor STATUTORY DUTY – Private right of action – Whether the Companies Act 1965 and the Securities Industry Act 1983 confer on investors a private cause of action against a statutory auditor for breach of statutory duty – Whether failure to specifically plead the relevant statutory provisions in a breach of statutory duty claim is fatal to that claim – Whether section 174 of the Companies Act 1965 imposes duties on auditors in favour of the company's clients as distinct from its members – Whether section 50 of the SIA, being a contingent whistle-blowing provision engaged only upon the audit
Judges (1)
Counsel (12)
Bodipalar & Partners Firm Cheang & Ariff Firm Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill Firm Allan Ng Counsel Plaintiff Fiona Bodipalar Counsel Plaintiff Gopal Sreenevasan Counsel Defendant Hanna Mathews Counsel Plaintiff Kelvin Seet Wan Nam Counsel Defendant Lee Yie Shyuan Counsel Defendant Lim Lay Yee Counsel Defendant Michelle Louis Counsel Defendant Tirasak Chua Counsel Plaintiff
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (29)
UK (10)
[1964] AC 465 [1990] 1 AC 831 [1990] 2 AC 605 [1991] AC 191 [1994] 1 WLR 1360 [1994] 3 All ER 129 [1995] 2 AC 207 [1995] 3 WLR 152 [2007] 1 AC 181 [2020] EWHC 1416
MY (19)
[1992] 3 MLJ 777 [2006] 2 CLJ 1 [2008] 2 CLJ 545 [2009] 4 MLJ 610 [2009] 6 CLJ 359 [2013] 1 MLJ 526 [2014] 6 CLJ 269 [2015] 7 CLJ 1008 [2015] 7 CLJ 849 [2015] MLJU 1944 [2015] MLJU 685 [2016] 3 MLJ 227 [2016] MLJU 1873 [2017] 1 MLJ 486 [2017] 10 CLJ 580 [2017] 4 MLJ 207 [2019] 3 CLJ 441 [2023] 3 MLJ 764 [2025] 5 MLJ 290
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (22ncc-431-03-2012)