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

2017 MarsdenLR 2145

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LEE THOU EN & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LEE TAU FEN – Respondent


Table of Content
1. ownership and payment for shares. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. legal observance of pleading standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10)
3. legal interpretation of appeal requirements. (Para 8)
4. issues with pleading and admissibility of evidence. (Para 12 , 16)
5. admissibility of evidence relevant to claims. (Para 14 , 15)

[1] This is an appeal by the 1st and 2nd Appellants/1st Defendant and 2nd Defendants against the decision of the High Court in which the learned Judge dismissed the Appellants' counterclaim.

[2] On 17 November 2016, we heard the appeal and after giving due consideration to the evidence adduced in the trial Court and submissions by respective counsel, we allowed the appeal. We now give our grounds for that decision.

Background Facts

[3] In the main suit, the Plaintiff/Respondent had sought a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Appellants held 250,000 shares in the 3rd Appellant on trust for the Respondent on the ground that he had paid for the subscription of the 250,000 shares.

[4] The 1st and 2nd Appellants disputed the aforesaid claim on the ground that it was them who had paid the sum of RM250,000.00 for the 250,000 shares and filed a counterclaim for the return of t

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