Back
2019 MarsdenLR 3252
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ACCOLADE LAND SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MASS RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(IM)-184-05-2017]
The court underscored the necessity for pleading details of alleged contracts, emphasizing that oral contracts can be enforceable if adequately detailed.
Headnote:The judgment analyzed the application of O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 concerning appeals from a High Court ruling. The plaintiff’s claims against the 1st defendant were initially struck out. In analyzing the appeal's merits, the court emphasized the importance of written documentation in affirming claims of an oral contract and found the original ruling erroneous. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, reinstated the case, and remitted it for trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary and foundation of the appellant's claims against the defendants. (Para 1) |
[1] The appellant who was the plaintiff at the High Court filed four separate appeals following the High Court's decision allowing effectively, as it were, its whole claim against each of the four defendants to be struck out upon the application of those defendants under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of 2012. Prior to the hearing, two of the appeals were withdrawn, namely Appeal Nos: W-01(IM)(C)-185-05-2017 and W-01(IM)(C)-186-05-2017, appeals against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. On the morning of the remaining two appeals, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal against the 4th defendant in Appeal No: W-01(IM)(C)-187-05-2017. That appeal was accordingly struck out on agreed costs leaving the last appeal against the 1st defendant. After hearing submissions from the parties amplifying and highlighting their written submissions filed earlier, we unanimously allowed the plaintiff's appeal. We will refer to the parties as they were at the High Court.
