Information

The Court of Appeal has rejected the application of Ridzlan bin Haji Ibrahim in a high-profile case involving a BND3 million dispute. The court upheld the decision that found Ridzlan liable for breaching his duty of care to Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim bin Pengiran Indera Mahkota Pengiran Anak (Dr) Kemaludin Al-Haj. Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong, alongside Justices Michael Lunn and Sir Peter Gross, heard Ridzlan’s appeal. Representing Ridzlan was Iman Hanisah binti Dato Paduka Haji Hisham of Messrs Brahms Omar, while Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim was represented by Haji Muhammad Zainidi bin Haji Abdul Hamid of Messrs ZS Legal. Iman Hanisah argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting a letter as evidence. She claimed the letter was part of settlement negotiations, not an acknowledgment of any legal responsibility, and argued that the “second third party” (Ridzlan) was a mere intermediary without binding legal obligations. ![](https://media.everythingbrunei.com/public/ZbUXv7SSHIeaZ0g89oFzE-9gsd7qgP16AMhP47Et9MK.jpeg) PHOTO: ENVATO Conversely, Haji Muhammad Zainidi defended the inclusion of the letter, asserting it did not constitute a negotiation but rather a plea to withdraw the action. He argued that the letter, despite being marked “without prejudice”, was rightly admitted as evidence, and that Ridzlan had waived any privilege through cross-examination. The court addressed several key issues. It was noted that the second third party had entered receivership, but no further discussion was deemed necessary on this point. Complaints regarding the court’s word limit for submissions and procedural objections were dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the arguments. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding of an implied solicitor-client relationship and the breach of duty by Ridzlan. The appeal was dismissed, with the court upholding the original judgement that Ridzlan was liable for misleading Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim regarding the guarantees, resulting in financial damages. As a result, the High Court maintained the earlier order for Ridzlan to pay BND3,060,999.79 to cover Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim’s settlement with the bank and legal costs. Ridzlan’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the decision reinforces the duty of legal professionals to provide accurate advice and adhere to formal client relationships. The High Court in December 2023 ruled in the case, arising from a dispute between a company and Ridzlan. The company defaulted on a loan, leading the bank to sue both the company and its director, Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim, who had signed a personal guarantee prepared by Ridzlan. Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim settled with the bank and then sued Ridzlan, alleging that Ridzlan, who was a close friend and advisor, failed to properly advise him on the guarantee. Ridzlan argued there was no formal lawyer-client relationship and that Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim was a seasoned businessman aware of the documents’ implications. However, the court found an implied retainer existed between them. It ruled Ridzlan had breached his duty by not advising Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim on the guarantee’s legal implications and misrepresenting facts. Ridzlan was ordered to cover Yang Amat Mulia Pengiran Maharaja Setia Laila Diraja Sahibul Irshad Pengiran Anak Haji Abdul Rahim’s settlement with the bank and legal costs. – Fadley Faisal

Segala Brunei→banar banar semua ada bah!⤴︎

Borneo Bulletin

Information

Borneo Bulletin Article

↳ Posted By

Borneo Bulletin

Urang macam awda pun kan meliat ani bah! ⤵︎

Brunei Lawyer Liable for $3M in Friend's Debt

Brunei Defamation Case: Court Restores Action Against Business Rivals

High Court Rejects Bid to Bar Lawyer's Assistance

Court Upholds BND54k Ruling Against Woman

High Court Upholds Liquidator's Proof of Debt

Paper Tissue

Borneo Bulletin