VENTURE SKL SDN. BHD. v GEONEX (M) SDN. BHD.

ca-22ncvc-36-07-2018 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 September 2024 • CA-22NCvC-36-07/2018 • 11 min read

14 cases cited (0 SG, 14 foreign)

Catchwords

There were two interlocutory applications before this Court. The 1st application in Enclosure 187 was by the Defendant for the setting aside of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Application for Directions and Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages. The 2nd application is in Enclosure 196 was the Plaintiff’s application for an abridgment of time to file the Notice of Application for Directions and the Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages. This Court has dismissed the Defendant’s application with no order to costs and has allowed the Plaintiff’s application with costs to the Defendant. This court is of the view that any non-compliance with O. 37 cannot remove substantive rights of the Plaintiff to have the damages assessed. To suggest otherwise and to deprive the Plaintiff of its right to proceed with the assessment of damages in the manner as specifically laid down by the Court of Appeal.

Judges (1)

Mohd Radzi bin Harun Delivered

Counsel (6)

Seah Balan Ravi & Co. Firm Vinod Kamalanathan & Associates Firm Kanesrau Appalanaidu Counsel Defendant Muhammad Azim Akif bin Saiful Bahri Counsel Plaintiff RK Nathan Counsel Plaintiff Vinod Kamalanathan Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

GEONEX Sdn Bhd Defendant VENTURE SKL Sdn Bhd Plaintiff

Cases Cited (14)

MY (14)

[2004] 5 CLJ 549 [2013] 3 CLJ 46 [2015] 3 AMR 254 [2015] 3 CLJ 63 [2017] 3 AMR 849 [2017] 5 CLJ 150 [2017] MLJU 410 [2017] MLJU 598 [2018] 3 AMR 385 [2018] 7 CLJ 105 [2019] 6 AMR 122 [2019] MLJU 968 [2020] 7 CLJ 512 [2020] AMEJ 0552

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ca-22ncvc-36-07-2018)