VENTURE SKL SDN BHD vs GEONEX (M) SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 709

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VENTURE SKL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GEONEX (M) SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Kamalanathan Ratnam,Vinod R Kamalanathan ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Shu Min

Table of Content
1. essential facts of the appeal regarding the mining contract and the initial judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 19)
2. overview of the trial's findings and judgments impacting the appeal. (Para 18 , 20 , 22)
3. concluding judgment on the appeal and its implications for both parties. (Para 24 , 25)
4. determination of contract status and implications of actions taken by the respondent. (Para 26 , 31 , 38 , 42)

Lim Chong Fong JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the trial judgment of the High Court in respect of an iron ore mining contract whereby the Appellant's claim was dismissed with costs and the Respondent's counterclaim of RM20,000.00 was allowed with costs.

[2] We heard the appeal on 19 January 2023 and thereafter unanimously allowed the appeal. In this regard, we found that the contract was terminated on 29 September 2016. We set aside the High Court's judgment and we, in substitution, only allowed the Appellant's claim made in prayers (v), (vi) and (vii) of the statement of claim to be assessed by the High Court (but not exemplary and punitive damages) with costs of RM40,000.00 subject to allocatur. Additionally, the Respondent's counterclaim is disallowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 709

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAVENTURE SKL SDN BHD – AppellantVersusGEONEX (M) SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
VENTURE SKL SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GEONEX (M) SDN BHD – Respondent