ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOR vs LIM CHENG ROW

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 MarsdenLR 2664

HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LIM CHENG ROW – Respondent

Table of Content
1. procedure for determining issues without a full trial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts surrounding the option agreement and its execution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11)
3. plaintiffs' arguments on commitments despite rcsn issues. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. defendant's contentions on obligations under the agreement. (Para 17 , 19 , 20)
5. court's findings on the contractual obligations. (Para 22 , 23 , 31)
6. conclusion on entitlement to specific performance. (Para 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT

GROUNDS OF DECISION

[1] The parties agreed that the Plaintiffs' claim be disposed of by way of determination of the Questions or Issues jointly identified without a full trial of the action. The parties also agreed that the Court's determination of these questions or issues would be final as to the entire cause or matter between the parties. This procedure was arrived at during the case management process under Order 34 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 read together with Orders 14A and 33 rules 2 and 5.

[2] Quite aside from the position taken by the parties, I in fact, agree that the procedure adopted is both appropriate and suitable given the circumstances and conditions in this case. The Federal Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 MarsdenLR 2664

HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPURASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOR – AppellantVersusLIM CHENG ROW – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
ASEAMBANKERS MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
LIM CHENG ROW – Respondent