Back
2013 MarsdenLR 618
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CONLAY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PEREMBUN (M) SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-63-09-2012(W)]
The standard for appellate interference requires substantial justification; mere differences in judgment do not suffice to overturn trial court findings on factual matters related to contract executions.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws and principles invoked include the established standards for appellate interference and the criteria for amending pleadings post-evidence submission.
(B) Appellate review requires clear justification for overturning trial court decisions; mere disagreement is insufficient.
(C) The trial court's decisions on work valuation and variations were upheld, emphasizing procedural correctness.
(D) The main issues addressed include whether broad grounds for appeal warrant intervention and the appropriateness of amendment after evidence closure. (E) The court found that the Court of Appeal did not appropriately apply appellate standards nor validated the trial judge's decisions on amendment. (F) The final decision stated: 'For the reasons above stated we would allow the plaintiff's appeal with costs.' (G) Parties involved: Plaintiff and Defendant. (H) Dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints were not present.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of background facts and proceedings in high court. (Para 1) |
| 2. questions relating to appellate interference and amendments. (Para 2) |
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal in reversing the High Court decision in favour of the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant in the consolidated actions in the High Court. We will refer to the parties as they were before the High Court.
[2] Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the following questions:
(1) Whether the test for appellate interference has been broadened to include the ground that the issues for trial have been stated in very broad and general grounds.
(2) Whether it is right to set aside an Order of the High Court after a full trial on these grounds without identifying the error, if any, that the trial judge is said to have committed in adjudicating on the issue.
