|
COURT DECISIONS
More Pages >
1979 to 1987 |
1988 to 1993 |
1994 & 1995 |
1996 & 1997 |
1998 & 1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007
Links to websites for other
sources of court decisions:
Malaysia Court Homepage -
http://www.kehakiman.gov.my
Cases from Malaysia, Singapore and Other Jurisdictions -
http://www.ipsofactoj.com |
|
Cases - 2007 |
RHB BANK
BHD V. AMALAN TEPAT SDN BHD & ORS
16 JANUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, MELAKA
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: 24-183-2005]
Application: [1] This is the plaintiff's application
by way of an originating summons in encl (1) under O. 17 r. 1(1)(a) of the
Rules of the High Court 1980 for relief by way of interpleader, seeking inter
alia a determination as to whether the balance of the second and third
defendants' housing loan should be released by the plaintiff to the first
defendant vide the plaintiff's undertaking dated 23 March 1996 given to the
first defendant pursuant to an irrevocable authority given by the second and
third defendants to the plaintiff. |
GAN HWA KIAN
& ANOR v. SHENCOURT SDN BHD
8 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S2-24-1208-2001]
CONTRACT: Sale and purchase of property - Delay in completion -
Rescission - Time of essence - Whether plaintiffs entitled to rescind contract
- Whether plaintiffs entitled to refund of monies paid for purchase - Whether
plaintiffs’ entitlement to liquidated damages took away right to rescind -
Whether plaintiffs could recover insurance premium paid - Contracts Act 1950,
ss. 56(1), 76 |
WALTER
PATHROSE GOMEZ & ORS V. SENTUL RAYA SDN BHD
26 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
[ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO: S6-24-2072-2003]
LAND LAW: Housing developers - Damages for late delivery - Whether
purchasers could set off against balance sum of purchase price due to
developer - Whether purchasers entitled to liquidated damages under sale and
purchase agreement - Whether time of the essence - Whether s. 56 Contracts Act
applicable
CONTRACT: Building contract - Delay - Damages for late delivery -
Whether purchasers could set off against balance sum of purchase price due to
developer - Whether purchasers entitled to liquidated damages under sale and
purchase agreement - Whether time of the essence - Whether s. 56 Contracts Act
applicable* (See also, WALTER
PATHROSE GOMEZ & ORS V. SENTUL RAYA SDN BHD -
( 10 SEPTEMBER 2005 ) HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR )
|
WONG THAI KUAI &
ANOR V. KANSAS CORPORATION SDN BHD
27 FEBRUARY 2007 - HIGH COURT [KUALA LUMPUR]
COMPANIES (WINDING UP) NO. D5-28-364-2006
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners brought this winding-up petition against the Respondent
pursuant to section 218 of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act) on the ground that
the Respondent was unable to pay its debt and that it is just and equitable
that the Respondent company be wound-up.
2. The Petitioners claim from the Respondent for a sum of RM320,826.30 being
liquidated damages for late delivery of shop-houses built by the Respondent. A
statutory notice under section 218 of the Act has been issued to the
Respondent. There is no judgment obtained by the Petitioners in respect of the
amount claimed. |
LSSC
DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V. THOMAS IRUTHAYAM & ANOR
14 MARCH 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO:
B-02-407-2005]
[1] This appeal raises a short question. It is this. What are the remedies
open to an innocent party where there is a breach of contract? One would have
thought that this rather basic question had been answered by the courts of
England at least by the mid 19th Century through the doctrine of repudiation.
See, Philpot v. Evans [1839] 151 ER 200, 202; Ripley v. M'Clure [1849] 154 ER
1245, 1251. Where a promisor wrongfully repudiates a contract in its entirety,
the promisee has a choice. He or she may elect to accept the repudiation,
treat the contract as at an end and sue for damages. The rationale is that the
primary obligation to perform the promise made is substituted with a secondary
obligation to compensate the promisee for the breach.
( See also -
Thomas Iruthayam & Anor v. LSSC Development Sdn Bhd (10 MARCH 2005
- HIGH COURT MALAYA, SHAH ALAM) |
HENG HANG KHIM V. SINEO ENTERPRISE SDN BHD
6 APRIL 2007 - HIGH COURT [JOHOR BAHRU]
SAMAN PERMULAAN NO:
24 - 423 - 1999 (4)
Dalam perkara yang diperuntukkan di bawah Seksyen 56 Akta Kontrak 1950
Dan Dalam perkara yang diperuntukkan di bawah Peraturan 11,
Peraturan-Peraturar Pemaju Perumahan (kawalan & Pelesenan 1989 DanDalam
perkara mengenai Perjanjian Jual Beli bertarikh 3.10.1995 untuk pembeliai satu
unit kondominium yang dikenal sebagai Unit #13A-03A5 Type A, Block 2 Skudai
Parade, Johor Bahru, Johor |
AU MENG NAM & ANOR v. UNG YAK CHEW & ORS
12 JULY 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: J-01-82-2005]
LAND LAW:
Indefeasibility of title and interests - Forged transfer -
Whether purchaser acquired indefeasible title - Whether words "to whom it may
subsequently be transferred" in s. 340(3)(a) NLC referred to immediate
purchaser or subsequent purchaser - Whether Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v.
Boonsom Boonyanit decided per incuriam - Whether binding precedent - Whether
distinguished - National Land Code, s. 340(2), (3) |
SYARIKAT GUNUNG SEJAHTERA SDN BHD v.
LIM SZE ON & ORS
16 JULY 2007 - COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: A-02-256-2002]
"Housing development", meaning of - Housing Development (Control &
Licensing) Act 1966, ss. 3, 5, 6, 18 - Housing Developers (Control &
Licensing) Regulations 1989, regs. 2, 11, Schedule G |
|
More Pages >
1979 to 1987 |
1988 to 1993 |
1994 & 1995 |
1996 & 1997 |
1998 & 1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007
|
