Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CHUA TIONG HOONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
N2N CONNECT BERHAD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of appeals and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. high court's findings on the anton piller order. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. principles governing anton piller orders. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. safeguards for executing anton piller orders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. defendants' complaints regarding execution of the apo. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. non-compliance issues with the apo. (Para 30 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. court's rationale for setting aside the apo. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. non-disclosure of material facts. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 56) |
| 9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 63 , 64) |
Introduction And Background Facts
[1] There are 2 appeals heard together. Parties will be referred to as in the High Court. Appeal 1985 is by Dl, D5 and D6. Appeal 1986 is by D3 and D4. References to enclosures are to appeal 1985 unless otherwise indicated.
[2] The Plaintiffs may be described as a collective group involved inter alia in the business of developing computer software packages, providing designing, programming and consultancy services.
[3] D1, D3 and D4 are the former employees of the Plaintiffs.
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
