Mahkamah Tinggi ketepi perjanjian fi guaman RM1.55 juta libat 203 anak guam

Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur has been investigating the fairness of a contract between a Guaman firm and 203 Guaman citizens in a business investment case. The court ruled that the contract was not reached fairly and contained unfair terms, including a lack of a maximum price clause. The prosecutor Nixon Kennedy Kumbong instructed all 18 Guaman firms to be removed from Jerald Gomez & Associates, which is estimated to cost RM1.55 million due to the absence of a binding contract.

In legal proceedings, this means the task involves a formal assessment by the court to determine the actual cost or Guaman amount to be paid. Nixon ordered the court to monitor the assessment process and instructed the relevant firm to return any payments found to exceed the assessed amount within 30 days of the assessment certificate being issued.

Plaintiffs, a collective investors suffering significant financial losses in a joint investment scheme tied to the founding of MYAirline by Goh Hwan Hua, had initiated legal proceedings against the Guaman firm. The firm conducted an initial investigation, held several meetings with potential plaintiffs, and ultimately filed a writ and claim statement on their behalf.

Plaintiffs challenged the terms and conditions of their signing, dated 16 Jan 2024, under Sections 116, 118, 126 and 128 of the Professions Act 1976. They sought to void or amend the contract, request a continuation period for filing the assessment process, and obtain an order for assessing all 18 Guaman firms. Issues under consideration include whether the contract was reached fairly based on the series of meetings between the legal parties before signing.

The court also examined whether the terms included were fair, such as hourly rates, lack of maximum price clause, and the firm's estimated liability amount, which could reach RM5 million. Plaintiffs raised concerns about the fees charged, including RM2,000 per hour for work performed by unqualified individuals, RM160,100 for the presence of eight staff at a media hearing, and RM58,500 for the presence of one lawyer in 11 meetings.

They claimed excessive billing, mismanagement of workload, and lack of accurate time records. In a 43-page judgment, Nixon emphasized that the fairness of any contract must be assessed based on fiduciary duties between the attorney and Guaman citizens, concluding that plaintiffs successfully proved their case under Section 118 of the Professions Act 1976, and also ruled that the alternative dispute resolution clause in the contract breaches Section 118.

"The appointment clause dated 16 Jan 2024 is overturned," he said. Jared Tee and Syed Afiq Syed Albakri acted on behalf of plaintiffs, while Michelle Wong and David Dev Peter represented the Guaman firm.