SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 MarsdenLR 2365

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MACKT LOGISTICS (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MALAYSIAN AIRLINE SYSTEM BERHAD – Respondent


[1] The parties will be referred to like what they were referred to before the High Court. Thus, Mackt Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd will be referred to as the plaintiff while Malaysian Airline System Berhad will be referred to as the defendant.

[2] This is the 2nd appeal to this Court from the same trial. The 1st appeal was allowed by another panel of this Court and that panel remitted the case back to the High Court for further consideration and the order of the other panel can be seen at pp 21 to 22 of the Appeal Record at Part "A" and it was dated 13 July 2011. I was a member of that panel that sat on 13 July 2011 and both parties had no objections that I heard this 2nd appeal.

The Salient Facts

[3] The plaintiff carried on the business of air cargo transportation and handling of consignment. In order to carry out the said business, the plaintiff had to deal with various airlines including but not limited to the defendant. In so far as the defendant was concerned, the plaintiff had to use the defendant to transport the plaintiff s cargo. For this purpose, the plaintiff entered into a sales agency agreement dated 5 May 1987 with the defendant. The sales agency agreement can be seen at pp 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top