HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LAI SIA LING & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
IVAN REPLUMAZ & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants' appeal context and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. doctrine of laches evaluation. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. laches testimony only if delay amounts to acquiescence. (Para 10) |
[1] This is the Appellants' appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ"), where she allowed the Respondents' claim against the Appellants at the Sessions Court.
[2] The action at the Sessions Court was brought by MPI Generali Insurans Berhad (formerly known as Multi-Purpose Insurans Bhd) ("the Insurer") by way of subrogation to the rights of the insured Respondents against the Insurer under an insurance contract between the Insurer and the Respondents, namely a "Houseowner / Householder Policy Claim" ("the Insurance Policy"). In the subrogation action at the Sessions Court, the Respondents were named as Plaintiff and the Appellants as Defendants.
[3] The Respondents were joint owners of Lots 81 and 82, Seputeh Heights and the Appellants are joint owners of Lots 62 and 80. Both the Respondents' and Appellants properties adjoined each other. The Appellants and/or their employees and/or their agents had commenced construction and excavation works to constru
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.