Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YAP KIM HIN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
CHUA BOON HOCK & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. procedural history and applications made. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. issues raised for determination. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. analysis of the functus officio doctrine. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. purpose of ca's order (25 august 2021). (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. variation of the order in interest of justice. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 7. court's inherent power to vary orders. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. discretion to award costs. (Para 31) |
| 9. final orders and conclusions. (Para 32 , 33) |
A. Background
[1] For ease of reference, we shall refer to parties as they were in the High Court (HC).
[2] Three plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) have filed a suit in the HC (Suit) against two defendants (Defendants) for, among others, an order of specific performance of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 24 February 2016 (SPA).
[3] According to the SPA, among others, the Defendants as co-proprietors of a piece of land held under Grant 47136, Lot no 4472, Mukim Ulu Langat, Ulu Langat District, Selangor (Land), had sold the Land at a price of RM2.6 million to five co-purchasers, namely, the Plaintif
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
