Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
PBJV GROUP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ASIAN KALIBER SDN BHD & ORS; SYNERGY MARINE (M) SDN BHD & ANOR (THIRD PARTY) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. indemnity claim based on charterparty agreement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. background facts of the incident. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. evidence and investigation reports. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 26) |
| 5. admissibility of documentary hearsay. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. burden of proof on pbjv. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 7. dismissal of claims against bumi armada. (Para 50 , 52 , 58 , 62 , 70) |
Introduction
[1] This is my judgment after full trial.
[2] The parties shall be referred to as follows:
[Synergy Marine and Executive Offshore shall collectively be referred to as "Third Party"]
[3] For the record:
(1) the action by PBJV as against Petrofac has been stayed pending arbitration;
(2) the action between PBJV, Asian Kaliber, and Bumi Armada has been bifurcated from the Third Party Action between Bumi Armada and the 1st and 2nd Third Party;
(3) the Trial only involved PBJV, Asian Kaliber and Bumi Armada.
[4] During the Trial, each party called only one witness respectively. They are:
[5] PBJV is seeking an indemnity under a charterparty agreement that it had entered into
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
