FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
INSTANTCOLOR SYSTEM SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
INKMAKER ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding limitations and breaches. (Para 4 , 12 , 17) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and prior conclusions. (Para 6 , 8 , 40) |
| 4. ratio decidendi focusing on limitations and the doctrine of relation back. (Para 11 , 19 , 50) |
| 5. final decision regarding time limitations imposed on claims. (Para 68) |
Introduction
[1] The appeal before us is against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 19 September 2013 in allowing the plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 12 October 2011. In this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the 2nd defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.
Background Facts
[2] The background facts of the appeal are summarised as follows
(a) the plaintiff at all material times was a manufacturer and dealer of paint and ink dispensing machines as well as other ancillary machines in Malaysia, with businesses established in China, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong and other countries;
(b) the plaintiff was set up by the 1st defendant (who is not a party to the present appeal) in 1998, as a joint venture
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.