SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD vs KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 MarsdenLR 1651

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Alex De Silva,Teo Lee Hoon,Tan Chee Ying ,Respondent Advocate: Loh Siew Cheang,Carine Cheong Kay Wei,Claudia Nyon Syn Yue

Table of Content
1. appeal against high court's decision on po (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contract details and termination of sinohydro's works (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. adjudication proceedings and outcomes (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. winding up petition and insolvency issues (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. undisputed background events (Para 17)
6. high court's findings on material non-disclosure (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. sinohydro's arguments on enforcement and disclosure (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30)
8. court's analysis of application requirements (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. discussion on remedies available to sinohydro (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
10. requirement of good faith in disclosure (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
11. clarification on stay order effects (Para 61 , 62)

See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (Sinohydro) against the decision of the High Court dated 10 March 2023 to set aside an ex parte Prohibitory Order (PO) granted. The PO is in respect of 13 parcels of land (subject land).

[2] The PO was obtained on 11 November 2022 and the sealed order extracted on 21

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 1651

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYASINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD – AppellantVersusKAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Respondent