Tanabal Naidu THOO CHEE WAH

Tanabal Naidu THOO CHEE WAH

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the questions posed under Order 14A and Order 33 involved disputed facts (causation, nature of works and quantum) and required trial evidence (including possibly the contractor and experts); therefore the Sessions Court erred in using summary procedures to strike out the claim and effectively grant the counterclaim. The Sessions Court's order dated 29.12.2020 was set aside and the matter was remitted for case management and progression to trial.

Citation
PA-12A-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Tanabal Naidu A/L Murugayan; Respondent: Thoo Chee Wah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Case Number
PA-12A-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Landlord Tenant Civil Appeal (appeal Against Sessions Court Order Under Order 14 a and Order 33 ROC 2012) / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order dated 29.12.2020 set aside
Legal Topics
Order 14 a ROC 2012, Order 33 ROC 2012, Summary Disposal, Restoration Vs Renovation, Sections 93 and 94 Evidence Act 1950, Case Management, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Evidence Law Order 14 a ROC 2012 Order 33 ROC 2012 Summary Disposal Restoration Vs Renovation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanabal Naidu A/L Murugayan

Appellant

Thoo Chee Wah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord Tenant Civil Appeal (appeal Against Sessions Court Order Under Order 14 a and Order 33 ROC 2012) / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether questions posed under Order 14A/Order 33 were suitable for determination without trial
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised (restoration vs renovation, causation and quantum) were questions of law or disputed questions of fact requiring a trial
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court erred in striking out the claimant's writ and allowing the counterclaim summarily

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the questions posed under Order 14A and Order 33 involved disputed facts (causation, nature of works and quantum) and required trial evidence (including possibly the contractor and experts); therefore the Sessions Court erred in using summary procedures to strike out the claim and effectively grant the counterclaim. The Sessions Court's order dated 29.12.2020 was set aside and the matter was remitted for case management and progression to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order dated 29.12.2020 set aside

Orders

  • Set aside the Sessions Court Order dated 29.12.2020
  • Order respondent (Thoo Chee Wah) to pay appellant (Tanabal Naidu) costs of RM12000 for this appeal and the Enclosure 65 proceeding, payable by 19.7.2024