CIMB BANK BERHAD vs AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ORS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 1145

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ORS – Respondent

Table of Content
1. appeal against a high court decision regarding competing property claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. facts detailing the charge and parties involved. (Para 4 , 5 , 10)
3. dispute over charges on property due to falsified documentation. (Para 11)
4. court's overview of previous holdings on indefeasibility. (Para 12 , 14)
5. court analysis of definitions impacting the meaning of purchaser. (Para 16 , 18 , 20)
6. arguments presented regarding property ownership and charge validity. (Para 21 , 22)
7. final determinations regarding responsibilities of chargees. (Para 28 , 35)
8. determination of indefeasibility based on good faith and the meaning of 'purchaser'. (Para 36 , 39 , 40)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 30 September 2015 in reversing the decision of the High Court. The High Court had on 8 July 2014 found in favour of the appellant (CIMB) in respect of competing claims with the 1st respondent (AmBank) over their respective charges on the same piece of land.

[2] Leave to appeal to this Court was granted to the appellant on 17 September 2016 on a single question of law which reads:

"Whether a chargee comes within the meaning of 'purcha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 1145

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYACIMB BANK BERHAD – AppellantVersusAMBANK (M) BERHAD & ORS – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ORS – Respondent