SHISHI GROUP SDN BHD vs MTRUSTEE BERHAD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 274

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SHISHI GROUP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MTRUSTEE BERHAD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Kenny Lee Jun How ,Respondent Advocate: Adrian Oswald Rajendran

Table of Content
1. the court upheld the previous ruling based on comprehensive findings. (Para 1 , 4 , 5)
2. the appellant's business operations continued amidst covid-19 restrictions. (Para 6 , 8 , 21)
3. no valid claim of frustration of the tenancy agreement was established. (Para 23 , 24)
4. counterclaim for returning the deposit was dismissed. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. the dismissal of further claims due to lack of evidence was upheld. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

The Appeal

[1] After a full trial, the Session Court ruled in favour of the Respondents and ordered for the Appellant to pay the following:

(a) RM875,949.04 for the outstanding rental, service charges and promotional charges);

(b) RM39,709.98 for the Respondent's legal costs pursuant to the Tenancy Agreement;

(d) Costs of RM15,000; and

(e) Costs of RM10,000 for the dismissal of the Appellant's counterclaim

There were also orders as to the interests to be calculated on each sum.

[2] This suit concerned a landlord's claim on the rental due and owing by its tenant, the Appellant. The Appellant had rented lot 1.10.00 on level one at Pavilion Kuala Lumpur shopping complex in the capital's city centre. The Appellant was in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 274

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURSHISHI GROUP SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMTRUSTEE BERHAD – Respondent

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SHISHI GROUP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MTRUSTEE BERHAD – Respondent