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

2017 MarsdenLR 1108

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
GPQ SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CONSTANT VIEW SDN BHD – Respondent


[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (the defendant in the High Court) against of the decision of the High Court of Kuala Terengganu dated 10 April 2015 made after a full trial, which allowed the plaintiff 's claim against the defendant with costs of RM15,000.00 and with a further order for both the special and general damages to be assessed by the Deputy Registrar.

[2] We heard this appeal on 21 October 2016. After hearing the respective parties we adjourned the matter for our consideration and decision.

[3] We now give our decision and the reasons for the same.

[4] We will refer to the parties as they were described in the High Court.

Brief Background Facts

[5] The salient facts are elucidated from the pleadings, judgment of the learned High Court Judge and the submissions of the respective parties. In order to save judicial time, the facts as highlighted in the above-mentioned documents are adopted herein with and/or without modifications.

[6] The State Government of Terengganu (the State) intended to redevelop Pekan Cabang Tiga in Kuala Terengganu (the said Project).

[7] The defendant submitted a proposal to the State to redevelop Pekan Cabang Tiga in two phases respectively as foll

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