THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tortfeasors (there is no allegation or finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs). Yet the reason as to why the liability against the second and third defendants has to be only ‘50%’ is, remarkably, not explained in the grounds of judgment. The reason as to why the second and third defendants are found to be mere co- tortfeasors is also, curiously, not explained in the grounds of judgment. It is also not explained in the grounds of judgment that, if the second and third defendants are mere co-tortfeasors, then who is/are the other tortfeasor/tortfeasors who is/are also 50% liable? Is it the developer (Merger Acceptance)? Or, is it the first defendant (Rakyat Corporation)? Or, is there some other party? On this question, the notes of evidence, the grounds of judgment and the sealed Order, unfortunately, appear to be silent. [Appeal allowed with costs of RM50,000 for here and below] (DATO’ MOHD HISHAMUDIN YUNUS) Judge, Court of Appeal Palace of Justice Putrajaya 44
Date of decision: 5 January 2012 Date of written grounds of judgment: 16 Oktober 2012 Mr. Kenny Chan Kean Li, Mr. Yap Kok Kheong and Ms Ong Bee Khoon (Messrs Gibb & Co.) for the appellants Mr. Siau Suen Miin and Mr. Loo Yook Khin (Messrs Siau Suen Miin & Tan) for the respondents 45
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Defendants (1) Rakyat
Page 5 and 6: (Rakyat Corporation Sdn Bhd) to be
Page 7 and 8: The Vendor shall do all acts and th
Page 9 and 10: y the vendor failing which the vend
Page 11 and 12: developer proceeded to construct th
Page 13 and 14: (b) the refusal on the part of the
Page 15 and 16: architects for the project, resulti
Page 17 and 18: CFOs under the SPA. As the learned
Page 19 and 20: … speak, short circuiting the con
Page 21 and 22: 4 CLJ 508 (but see now the Federal
Page 23 and 24: The above proposition was cited wit
Page 25 and 26: From the evidence in this case, I f
Page 27 and 28: consequences. The case law authorit
Page 29 and 30: First one has to ask whether, as be
Page 31 and 32: which ought to negative, or to redu
Page 33 and 34: contemplate would be affected by hi
Page 35 and 36: ‘neighbourhood’ and that the si
Page 37 and 38: certainly owe a duty of care to the
Page 39 and 40: 128 ALR 163), New Zealand (for exam
Page 41 and 42: that the layout plan necessitated e
Page 43: Peculiarity of High Court’s Order

THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?