TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD vs GOH CHENG HUAT & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOH CHENG HUAT & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Gavin Jayapal,Merissa Ann Augustin,Sivanandini Sreegantham ,Respondent Advocate: Joseph Yeo,Paramjothy Pahavan,Varghese Onny,Armikayani Amiruddin

Table of Content
1. joint venture agreement details and extensions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. authority of d4 in binding co-owners. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. defendant's breach of contract claims. (Para 12 , 13)
4. assessment of damages and validity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. valid extensions and fulfillment of obligations. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. errors in assessment and quantum meruit. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. court's final decision on appeals. (Para 24)

S Nantha Balan JCA:

[1] There are 2 appeals before us, namely,

(a) B-02(NCvC)(W)-352-03/2024 (Appeal 352) (Tect Huat Development Sdn Bhd v. Goh Cheng Huat & 4 Others); and

(b) B-02(NCvC)(W)-353-03/2024 (Appeal 353) (Goh Cheng Huat & 4 Others v. Tect Huat Development Sdn Bhd)

[2] In the High Court, Tect Huat Development Sdn Bhd was the Plaintiff, whereas Goh Cheng Huat & 4 Others were the Defendants. We shall refer to the parties as the Plaintiff and the Defendants, respectively. Thus, the Appellant in Appeal 352 is the Plaintiff, whilst the Appellants in Appeal 353 are the Defendants.

The Facts

[3] The Defendants are the landowners of a parcel of agricultural land. The Plaintiff (a developer) and the Defendants executed a Joint Venture Agreement d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYATECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – AppellantVersusGOH CHENG HUAT & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOH CHENG HUAT & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent