CIMB BANK BERHAD vs ANTHONY LAWRENCE BOURKE & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 3240

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
ANTHONY LAWRENCE BOURKE & ANOR – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Wong Hok Mun,Sharifah Alliana Idid ,Respondent Advocate: Ong Yu Jian,ames Lee

Table of Content
1. interpretation of exclusion clauses vis-à-vis contracts act 1950. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. analysis of section 29 is crucial to resolve the contract dispute. (Para 2)
3. the failure of the bank to comply with contractual obligations led to a breach. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
4. the impact of exclusion clauses on rights to damages. (Para 15 , 17)
5. the court emphasizes the public policy against unfair contract clauses. (Para 19 , 28 , 66)
6. exclusion clauses are scrutinized under section 29 for enforceability. (Para 36)

[1] This case deals with the issue of whether an exclusion clause in an agreement entered into between two parties, a house buyer and a bank may be struck out by the provisions of s 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 .

Salient Facts

[2] The parties in this appeal will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

[3] The plaintiffs are husband and wife. They are foreigners and living in the United Kingdom. To finance the purchase of a property, they applied for and was granted a term loan facility of RM715,487.00 by the defendant bank. The loan was provided under the Housing/Shop house Loan Agreement dated 22 April 2008 (Loan Agreement). The property purchased

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 3240

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYACIMB BANK BERHAD – AppellantVersusANTHONY LAWRENCE BOURKE & ANOR – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
ANTHONY LAWRENCE BOURKE & ANOR – Respondent