Badan Pengurusan Bersama Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd (BA-22C-7-03/2020)

High Court of Malaysia7 May 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 7 May 2025
Case number: BA-22C-7-03/2020
Coram: YA Puan Sumathi a/p Murugiah
Practice area: -There are many contradicting statements made by the Defendant in its attempt to substantiate its case -Defendant alleges that there have been no directions given by this court due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file the Notice of Appointment, however, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 8 directions given by this court. By this statement, the Defendant clearly contradicts itself. -not denied that the Defendant had attended all the Case Managements related to Enclosure No. 197 even after the expiry of the 6 months after the Judgment and yet no objections were raised or directions sought by the Defendant in relation to the non-compliance to Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012. -Defendant did not base this application of Order 18 Rule 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court 2012 - action filed by the Defendant is a mere afterthought to further delay the process of Assessment of Damages and as such has failed to substantiate its claim pursuant to its application under Enclosure No. 218
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 25 Jul 2025
Source ID: 134c5015-ce6f-4f14-aa8f-9adbd6e3b98a

Catchwords

-There are many contradicting statements made by the Defendant in its attempt to substantiate its case -Defendant alleges that there have been no directions given by this court due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file the Notice of Appointment, however, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the 8 directions given by this court. By this statement, the Defendant clearly contradicts itself. -not denied that the Defendant had attended all the Case Managements related to Enclosure No. 197 even after the expiry of the 6 months after the Judgment and yet no objections were raised or directions sought by the Defendant in relation to the non-compliance to Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012. -Defendant did not base this application of Order 18 Rule 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court 2012 - action filed by the Defendant is a mere afterthought to further delay the process of Assessment of Damages and as such has failed to substantiate its claim pursuant to its application under Enclosure No. 218

Parties

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SUBANG PARKHOMES - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
ZEN ESTATES SDN BHD - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords