Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
STAMFORD COLLEGE BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
IRIS CORPORATION BERHAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal obligations stemming from share purchase agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments concerning summary judgment applications. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. conditions for denying summary judgment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. due diligence as a condition precedent. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. assessment of triable issues requiring witness testimonies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. conditions under which a claim can be struck out. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 7. arguments on striking out the claim. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. court's finding on striking out. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 9. arguments for security for costs. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. defendant's reasons for security for costs. (Para 52) |
| 11. plaintiff's rebuttal to security for costs. (Para 53 , 54) |
[1] When this case was heard for case management in this court after taking over from another court, there were already three interlocutory applications filed; one by the plaintiff for summary judgment (encl 5) pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ('RC'), two by the defendant for striking out of the writ and statement of claim (encl 1
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
