Back
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
MAYBAN ALLIED BHD – Appellant
Versus
KENNETH GODFREY GOMEZ & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claims related to auction proceeds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant argues against res judicata and limitation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents support striking out based on prior suit. (Para 9) |
| 4. court's power to strike out claims. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. res judicata principles and their implications. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. consent order implications on res judicata. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. withdrawal conditions and implications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. consent order binds parties legally. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. appeals dismissed due to res judicata. (Para 28) |
| 10. limitation period for contract claims. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
[1] The plaintiff (the appellant in the present appeal) is a company that has taken over the assets of the Co-operative Central Bank Limited (CCB). The defendants (the respondents in the present appeal) are all partners and advocates and solicitors practising under the firm name of M/s Nordin Hamid & Co during the period when the plaintiff's alleged cause of action arose.
[2] The appellant's claim against the respondents is for the return of auction proceeds allegedly kept by the Kuala Lumpur of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
