Firdaus Khan bin Parit Khan & Anor v CIMB Bank Berhad [2024] 5 AMR 793, CA

Civil procedure – Appeal – Memorandum of appeal ("MA") – Application for extension of time – Record of appeal filed within stipulated period – MA omitted as High Court's written judgment ("judgment") not provided – Supplemental record of appeal containing MA filed after availability of judgment – Whether appeal ought to be dismissed for breach of rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ("RCA") – Whether rule 18(7A) of the RCA prevails over rule 18(7) thereof – Whether there was agreement between parties for MA to be filed only after judgment received – Whether rule 105 of the RCA ought to be invoked to decide such application – Whether appellants would be prejudiced if application dismissed – Whether application ought to be allowed – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 3A18(7), (7A), (7B), 93, 94, 102, 105

Civil procedure – Time – Enlargement or extension of – Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal ("MA") – Record of appeal filed within stipulated period – MA omitted as High Court's written judgment ("judgment") not provided – Supplemental record of appeal containing MA filed after availability of judgment – Whether appeal ought to be dismissed for breach of rule 18(7) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 ("RCA") – Whether rule 18(7A) of the RCA prevails over rule 18(7) thereof – Whether there was agreement between parties for MA to be filed only after judgment received – Whether rule 105 of the RCA ought to be invoked to decide such application – Whether appellants would be prejudiced if application dismissed – Whether application ought to be allowed – Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rules 3A18(7), (7A), (7B), 93, 94, 102, 105

Residenmas Development Sdn Bhd v YM Raja Halinuddin bin Raja Halid [2024] 5 AMR 817, CA

Contract – Assignment – Breach – Income and payments due from developer to main contractor under construction contract allegedly assigned to plaintiff vide bailout and temporary take over agreement ("agreement") – Plaintiff's claim against developer for outstanding sums due to main contractor allowed by High Court – Whether agreement between main contractor and plaintiff amounted to absolute assignment – Whether plaintiff being stranger to the construction contract had locus standi to seek sums arising thereof – Whether appellate intervention warranted – Civil Law Act 1956, s 4(3)

Anjung Hijau Sdn Bhd v Associated Builders & Contractors Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors [2024] 5 AMR 835, HC

Contract – Construction contract – Extension of time ("EOT") – Validity of – Suit filed by developer for declaration that EOTs granted for completion of residential project were null and void – Counterclaim by contractor for unpaid works – Whether EOTs invalid and contrary to PAM Contract 2006 (Without Quantities) standard form contract – Whether developer entitled to liquidated ascertained damages – Whether contractor entitled to payment for works done – Whether developer, architect and project engineer guilty of conspiracy against developer in granting EOTs – Evidence Act 1950, ss 101, 102

Khatimah binti Irin (suing as administrator to the estate of Hamzah bin Abdul Hamid) & Anor v AIA Berhad [2024] 5 AMR 866, HC

Civil procedure – Amendments – Statement of defence ("SOD") – Insurer repudiated deceased's insurance claims via repudiation letter based on material misrepresentation – Discovery of hospital documents revealed non-disclosure of deceased's smoking habit – Insurer applied for amendment in SOD to insert new revelation – Deceased's family opposed application on grounds of delay and proposed amendment amounting to new ground of repudiation – Whether proposed amendment introduces new and distinct ground – Whether there was delay in filing application – Whether application ought to be allowed – Evidence Act 1950, s 3 – Rules of Court 2012, Order 20 r 5

Professor Dato’ Dr Sellappan s/o Subbiah v Datuk Subbiah s/o Thevarayan Chettiar & 2 Ors [2024] 5 AMR 874, HC

Contract – Specific performance – Family settlement agreement – Plaintiff claimed specific performance of quadripartite agreement entered by family members – Agreement unilaterally terminated by first defendant due to plaintiff's alleged breach – Whether agreement irrevocable and binding – Whether termination valid – Whether plaintiff breached agreement – Whether plaintiff's alleged breach goes to root of agreement, attracting application of ss 40 or 56 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Whether plaintiff's action barred by doctrine of laches – Whether agreement unenforceable against third defendant on grounds of his ignorance and/or lack of consideration and/or undue influence – Whether action ought to be allowed – Contracts Act 1950, ss 40, 50 – Specific Relief Act 1950, ss 11, 18, 41

Contract – Termination – Family settlement agreement – Plaintiff claimed specific performance of quadripartite agreement entered by family members – Agreement unilaterally terminated by first defendant due to plaintiff's alleged breach – Whether agreement irrevocable and binding – Whether termination valid – Whether plaintiff breached agreement – Whether plaintiff's alleged breach goes to root of agreement, attracting application of ss 40 or 56 of the Contracts Act 1950 – Whether plaintiff's action barred by doctrine of laches – Whether agreement unenforceable against third defendant on grounds of his ignorance and/or lack of consideration and/or undue influence – Whether action ought to be allowed – Contracts Act 1950, ss 40, 50 – Specific Relief Act 1950, ss 11, 18, 41