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

2000 MarsdenLR 42

FEDERAL COURT KUALA LUMPUR
PAU NGIE SIONG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
KONTIKI TRADING PTE LTD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:V Sivaparanjothi,YY Sim ,Respondent Advocate: Wong Ho Leng

Table of Content
1. judgment background and observations (Para 1 , 3 , 12)
2. s86 applicability to indemnity contracts (Para 2 , 6 , 10)
3. arguments for and against interpretation of law (Para 4 , 9 , 11)
4. court's analysis and conclusion (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
Abu Mansor Ali FCJ:

[1] This appeal was argued before us in this court, sitting in Kuching on 23 February 2000. After having heard arguments from counsel both for the appellant and the respondent, we were invited by both counsel to properly consider the important point raised in this appeal. We then reserved our decision to write our grounds. This is our judgment.

[2] It is not disputed that the appeal only raised one short issue of law and, according to counsel for the appellant, this is the first time this issue is before this court for decision. Hence this court granted the required leave to appeal. The short issue raised is whether s 86 of the Contracts Act 1950 is only applicable to guarantor and not applicable to a contract of indemnity.

[3] It is not necessary that we state the facts of this appeal. The facts had been clearly and admirably stated in the judgment of the court of Appeal. In this appeal, we also proceeded on the bas

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