PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD vs CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 MarsdenLR 1469

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Bastian Vendargon ,Respondent Advocate: Felix Dorairaj

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of appellate court confirmed (Para 1 , 1 , 2)
2. appellate court's role and discretion (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. limits on grounds of appeal. (Para 9 , 10)
4. evaluation of grounds for appeal (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
5. errors in trial judge's evidentiary assessments. (Para 14)
6. procedural requirements for amendments (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22)
7. potential appeal grounds related to judicial discretion. (Para 21)

[1] The plaintiff Conlay Construction Sdn Bhd claimed payment for construction work done under a subcontract. The defendant Perembun (M) Sdn Bhd counterclaimed. After a full trial, the High Court found in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The defendant appealed to this Court:

"... terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut di mana diputuskan bahawa penghakiman dimasukkan terhadap defendan untuk jumlah sebanyak RM753,769. 61 dan RM374,000. 00 bersama-sama faedah dan kos sebanyak RM45,000.00."

[2] Having heard the parties, the defendant's appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside and costs was fixed at RM30,000 here and below.

[3] At the trial, the parties had agreed upon the issues to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 MarsdenLR 1469

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD – AppellantVersusCONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Respondent