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

2015 MarsdenLR 1930

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SPM MEMBRANE SWITCH SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Hazman Ahmad,Nadirah Izyan Azaddin,Razlan Hadri Zulkifli,Ho Kok Yew ,Respondent Advocate: Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman,Ahmad Fuad Othman,Rafiqha Hanim Mohd Rosli

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - A notice of termination must specify reasons if the contract provides for a review process before termination is valid (!) (!) (!) . - The review procedure under the contract must be completed before termination under cl 8.1(b) may be validly exercised (!) (!) (!) . - Upon wrongful termination, the non-breaching party may be entitled to compensation for loss of profit as a natural and probable result of the breach (!) (!) (!) .

What is the requirement for a notice of termination under a contract?

When must a review be conducted before termination under a contract clause?

What are the remedies available upon wrongful termination of a contract?


Table of Content
1. court must determine necessity of providing reasons for contract termination. (Para 1 , 14 , 15)
2. interpretation of clauses in relation to termination rights. (Para 2 , 6 , 68 , 83)
3. discusses judicial findings on contract performance and termination. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
Zainun Ali FCJ:

[1] Leave for the appeal before us was unanimously granted on 11 April 2013 on the question of law of "whether a notice to terminate a concession/ privatisation agreement which is vague, unspecific and uncertain is defective and bad in law".

The Facts

[2] Kerajaan Negeri Selangor ("the respondent") and SPM Membrane Switch Sdn Bhd ("the appellant"), entered into an agreement ("the agreement") on 27 September 2001 in which the respondent appointed the appellant to assist them in collecting outstanding annual quit rent in Selangor (particularly in the districts of Petaling, Kuala Langat, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Hulu Selangor).

[3] A supplemental agreement was entered into on 9 July 2003.

[4] Pursuant to the agreement, the appellant was responsible for the collection of arrears of quit rent. There were a number of obligations the appellant had agreed to, which amongst others, included the

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