KOMOCO MOTORS PTE LTD vs FARIDAH ABDULLAH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 1493

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KOMOCO MOTORS PTE LTD – Appellant
Versus
FARIDAH ABDULLAH – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Gan Teck Long ,Respondent Advocate: Ng Chew Hor

Table of Content
1. motion for new evidence admission procedure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. background and parties in the dispute. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. plaintiff's arguments for new evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16)
4. court's evaluation of evidence availability and diligence. (Para 13 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22)
5. legal requirements for admitting further evidence. (Para 14)
6. assessment of plaintiff's diligence and opportunities. (Para 20)
7. final decision on the new evidence. (Para 23)

[1] This is a notice of motion filed by the appellant/applicant to adduce the following documents as new evidence at the hearing of the appeal. The date of hearing of the appeal is yet to be fixed.

[2] The documents are as follows:

(1) A letter from Messrs Gan & Lim (the solicitors of the appellant/ plaintiff) dated 17 July 2012 to the Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department ('the EPU'), pointing out that the EPU's letter of 27 March 2006 notifying the approval of the Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) had stated the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement ('the SPA') to be '24 February 2006', whereas the actual date of the SPA was 24 February 2003. The letter sought a confirmation fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 1493

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAKOMOCO MOTORS PTE LTD – AppellantVersusFARIDAH ABDULLAH – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
KOMOCO MOTORS PTE LTD – Appellant
Versus
FARIDAH ABDULLAH – Respondent