FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DAMANSARA REALTY BHD – Appellant
Versus
BUNGSAR HILL HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leave granted for appeal and key facts highlighted. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute pertains to the requirement for continuous development. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. the interpretation of the pda as a stand-alone contract. (Para 12 , 19 , 30) |
| 4. arguments regarding interlocking agreements. (Para 15 , 16 , 25) |
| 5. obligations under s 47 of the contracts act. (Para 33 , 41) |
| 6. validity of the termination notice. (Para 42 , 46) |
[1] On 26 January 2011, leave was granted to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal given on 29 October 2009. Six questions were posed for our consideration. We heard the appeal on 14 June 2011. We reserved our decision to consider the points raised by the parties. We now give our judgment.
[2] For convenience, in this judgment the appellant is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents collectively as the defendants. Where necessary, the defendants will respectively be referred to as either the first defendant or the second defendant.
[3] In coming to its decision, the Court of Appeal by majority upheld the judgment of the High Court given on 22 June 2009 dismissing the action of the plaintiff.
[4] For the reasons given below, we
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.