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

2017 MarsdenLR 96

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TAN KOK SIANG – Appellant
Versus
KEMUNING SETIA SDN BHD – Respondent


Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA:

Background

[1] In the claim before the High COURT, the respondent, a housing developer and the appellant, an individual, had two contractual relationships.

[2] The first was via an oral contract made in 2009. In this oral contract, Tan Swee Leong [PW1], better known as Steven Tan, the Chief Executive Officer [CEO] of the respondent approached the appellant with an offer that the appellant work as its project manager in its housing project known as 98 Greenlane Lintang Gangsa [the project]. The appellant was required to serve as project manager until the completion of that project. For ease of reference, this will be referred to as the 'employment contract'.

[3] The amount of consideration under this employment contract is disputed. The appellant maintains that it was for RM1 million whereas the respondent claimed that it was for RM500,000.00. The respondent claimed that it had advanced the appellant this sum of RM500,000.00 via a discount for the same amount in the second contractual relationship between the parties.

[4] The second contractual relationship between the parties arose when the appellant purchased from the respondent one unit of 3-storey terrace hou

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