Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
CHEAH CHENG HUAT – Appellant
Versus
AIG MALAYSIA INSURANCE BERHAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary objection on appeal competency (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. interpretation of s 28(1)(a) monetary limit (Para 5 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 41) |
| 3. court's reasoning on appeal jurisdiction (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 27 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 70) |
| 4. ratio on appeal prohibition under s 28(1)(a) (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 60) |
| 5. conclusion on appeal incompetency (Para 62 , 69 , 71) |
Prelusion
[1] The Appeal before me is a post-trial appeal from the Sessions Court. But at the hearing of the Appeal, the Respondent/Defendant (D) raised a preliminary objection against the competency of the Appeal.
[2] The Defendant submits that s 28(1)(a) of the Courts Of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA) prohibits an appeal from the subordinate courts (the Sessions Court and the Magistrates Court) when "the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter" is RM10,000.00 or less, "except on a question of law".
[3] In the Sessions Court, the Appellant/Plaintiff (P) claimed the remedy of general, aggravated, exemplary, and quantifiable special damages that amounted to much
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
