CUBIC ELECTRONIC SDN BHD vs MKC CORPORATE & BUSINESS ADVISORY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 25

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CUBIC ELECTRONIC SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MKC CORPORATE & BUSINESS ADVISORY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. conspiracy among defendants obstructing the plaintiff's rights. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
2. elements required for lawful means conspiracy. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
3. assessment of 'vacant possession' in tenancy agreements. (Para 23 , 24 , 30)
4. trust requirements and limits based on evidence. (Para 38 , 40)

Mohd Zawawi Salleh JCA:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, in the judgment, we will refer to the appellants as "defendants" and the respondent as "plaintiff".

[2] These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 10 June 2015 given by the Shah Alam High Court in Civil Suit Nos: B-02(NCVC)(W)-993-06-2015, B-02(NCVC)(W)- 1100-07-2015 and B-02 (NCVC)(W)-1101-07-2015. By the said impugned judgment, Her Ladyship granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff against all the defendants and dismissed the 1st defendant's counterclaim.

[3] Her Ladyship held that the plaintiff had proven its case against the defendants for breach of contract as well as its claim of tort of conspiracy to injure against all the defendants and ordered a compensation sum of RM6,299,971.72 with 5% interest per annum from the date of the writ to the date of satisfaction. Further,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 25

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYACUBIC ELECTRONIC SDN BHD – AppellantVersusMKC CORPORATE & BUSINESS ADVISORY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
CUBIC ELECTRONIC SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MKC CORPORATE & BUSINESS ADVISORY SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent