KHATIJAH ABDULLAH & ORS vs MOHD ISA BIRAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 738

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KHATIJAH ABDULLAH & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MOHD ISA BIRAN – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Gopal Sri Ram,Harpal Singh Grewal,Abd Shukor Ahmad,CK Lim,Khu Kim Huat,Julian Chan,David Yii ,Respondent Advocate: Vincent Yap,Keith Kwan

Table of Content
1. appellants contest spa enforceability. (Para 1 , 2)
2. spas terms defined and context established. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. appellants seek declaration against spa. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court explores the enforceability of the spa based on consent. (Para 10)
5. respondent argues limitation applies. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. condition precedent deemed essential. (Para 14 , 15 , 20 , 22)
7. the defense of limitation is assessed against contractual failures. (Para 19)
8. spa void if conditions unmet. (Para 23 , 30 , 31)
9. appeal successful; spa declared void. (Para 32 , 33)

Aziah Ali FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellants against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 22 August 2013 which had allowed the respondent's appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 31 October 2012 which allowed the appellants' claim and dismissed the respondent's counterclaim.

Questions Of Law

[2] On 26 March 2015, leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the following questions of law:

(a) Whether limitation applies to a case where the contract becomes void and/or unenforceable for failure of a condition precedent?

(b) Whether judgment could be entered in favour of the defaul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 738

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAKHATIJAH ABDULLAH & ORS – AppellantVersusMOHD ISA BIRAN – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
KHATIJAH ABDULLAH & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MOHD ISA BIRAN – Respondent