Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
ANTONINA MARLEEN YARENDRA – Appellant
Versus
CHAI WEI CHUNG – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court ruled compensation under section 329(1) is discretionary. (Para 1) |
| 2. backdrop of the caveat lodged and its subsequent issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the framing of the compensation issue regarding caveat removal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. discretion of the court in determining compensation based on damages. (Para 13 , 14 , 22) |
| 5. liability for compensation depends on proof of damage or loss. (Para 15 , 19) |
| 6. absence of evidence negates order for compensation. (Para 24 , 26) |
[1] This appeal deals with a very defined and narrow point and that is, whether the order to pay compensation under s 329(1) of the National Land Code is mandatory or otherwise. Upon hearing both learned counsel, we decided the issue in the negative. Consequently, we unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court on the order for payment of damages. These are our reasons.
[2] The appellant purchased from Md Anwar Shawkat Afser and Farzana Afsar ('original owners'), a service apartment ('said property') located in a development known as "231 TR". For this purpose, the parties entered into a sale and purchase agreement dated 20 December 2013 ('the SPA'). At that time
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
