Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ:

We heard this appeal on 21 and 22 January 2002 but reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. The onerous task of preparing the grounds of judgment, based on thirty-four volumes of the appeal records and numerous bundles of documents, authorities and affidavits, was initially assigned to my learned brother Mohtar Abdullah FCJ who was subsequently admitted to hospital on 5 August 2002 and since he is still being hospitalised, the matter had been reassigned to me on 25 April 2003. Hence this unavoidable delay.

Leave to appeal had been granted by this court (Wan Adnan Ismail PCA, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim CJM and Haidar Mohd. Noor FCJ) on 10 October 2001 on sixteen questions as set out below:

1a. In the event an interpretation is advanced and/or reliance is placed on documents that have been challenged on grounds of or analogous to that of "false label" and/or "sham documents", is there any place for the application of principles on evidential restrictions that would otherwise apply to common case of disputed interpretation on expressly recognised contractual documents.

1b. In relation to such "false label" and/or "sham documents", are the terms contained in such documents to be held as automatically void in its entirety or is it still incumbent on the Court to determine the terms of the "true relationship or arrangement" arising therefrom, whether these terms are in part to be derived from the challenged documents or otherwise.

2a. When a claim is grounded in contract and defended on common law contract reasons or grounds (as opposed to pure equitable grounds) is there scope to deprive the defendants of their defence by relying on and applying against them equitable principles and/or considerations.

2b. In any event and in relation to a claim involving relief of an equitable type, whether it is a proper test and if so to what extent for the application of equitable principles and/or considerations to be principally directed towards or obtained from an examination of the defence's case and/or conduct.

3a. Whether the aforesaid relevant principles as set out in L. Schuler AG are to be applied only to determine whether obligations are to be construed as conditions or mere warranties.

3b. Whether and if so, to what extent, can the Court further resort to and apply the said principles (as set out in the said L. Schuler AG) to a case when there exists express provisions to cover "any default" and further express provisions to enable termination upon such default.

4a. In quasi regulated commercial contractual activity in the form of construction of infrastructure, is it open to the Court to grant declarations of status in favour of third parties who have not been clothed with recognition by such authorities.

4b. In negotiated commercial contractual documents, what is the proper test to be applied and the consequent proper threshold of proof and/or evidence required for an implication to arise from such documents.

5a. Whether it is a correct test of discretionary relief arising under contract to state that such discretionary relief is available as a matter of course to an innocent party.

5b. Whether it is a correct test of an appellate court to decline a review of discretionary relief arising under contract merely on account that such discretionary relief remains the discretion of the trial judge.

6a. Whether there is scope to consider compensation and if so, to what extent when the areas to which the alleged defective works refer have been surrendered to and accepted by the local authorities.

6b. Whether there is a scope to consider compensation and if so, to what extent, when the claimant is not clothed with approvals to carry out any other infrastructure works, whether by way of rectification or otherwise.

7a. Whether the prescription of a right of possession under a contract of sale of landed property is a prescription of a temporary kind until the event of registration occurs.

7b. Whether a breac