SANG LEE COMPANY SDN BHD vs SUBURAMANIAM MAYAWAN & ORS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 MarsdenLR 3114

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SANG LEE COMPANY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SUBURAMANIAM MAYAWAN & ORS – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Chan By Sing,Lim Cheng Wun,Sakthy Vell ,Respondent Advocate: MJ Ganesan

Table of Content
1. existence of oral contract for oil palm cultivation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 35 , 38)
2. defendant denies contract existence (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 61)
3. evaluation of credibility of evidence (Para 8 , 9 , 17 , 19 , 20)
4. burden of proof and reliance on representations (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 63 , 64)
5. conclusion on appeal and its outcome (Para 28 , 30 , 68)

Low Hop Bing JCA:

Appeal

[1] This appeal by the appellant ("the defendant") is lodged against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in allowing the claim of the respondents ("the plaintiffs") after a full trial.

[2] We heard the appeal on 31 May and 1 June 2010. By a majority judgment (Low Hop Bing and Zaharah bt Ibrahim JJCA concurring, and Mohd Hishamudin bin Mohd Yunus JCA dissenting), we allowed the appeal. We now give the grounds of the majority judgment.

Plaintiffs' Claim

[3] The plaintiffs are partners who have been carrying on the business of supplying tanker lorry services to carry latex from Kota in Negeri Sembilan to Port Klang in Selangor since 1987.

[4] The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is based on an oral contract in March 1999 with the defendant to replant, maintain and fertilise oil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 MarsdenLR 3114

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASANG LEE COMPANY SDN BHD – AppellantVersusSUBURAMANIAM MAYAWAN & ORS – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SANG LEE COMPANY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SUBURAMANIAM MAYAWAN & ORS – Respondent