Cepatwawasan Group Berhad v Datuk Lo Fui Ming
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia |
| Date | 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Malaysia) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Chan Sze Ying v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2948 (Lee Chuen T'ng, intervener)
...In addition, the Appellant cited a decision of the Malaysian Court of Appeal, CepatWawasan Group Bhd v Datuk Lo Fui Ming & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 57 (“CepatWawasan”). That case concerned an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) of a company held at the request of the first, second and third respo......
-
Wa-24Ncc-732-06-2022 Caely Holding Final
...Adjournment were of no consequence and the Purported Adjournment was invalid. [See: Cepatwawasan Group Bhd v. Datuk Lo Fui Ming & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 57; Ho Hee Chung (Intervening Respondent) [2004] 4 CLJ 453 (CA) at page 463 (line [38] It is the Court’s judgment that the Plaintiffs had ensure......
-
Primus (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. v Eon Capital Berhad, 31-01-2011
...consider the pronouncements of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC and Justice Megarry in Cepat Wawasan Group Bhd v. Datuk Lo Fui Ming & Ors (2005) 2 MLJ 57. Abdul Aziz JCA (as he then was) considering the pronouncements of Sir Nicolas BrowneWilkinson VC had this to say in page 65 of the report......
-
Wong Hua Seh v Abang Mohd Porkan Bin, 08-03-2013
...error (Diversey (Far East) Pte Ltd v Chai Chung Ching Chester & Ors (No.2) [1993] 1 SLR 542; Chan Kok Choon JP v MBF Finance Bhd [2004] 4 CLJ 453) or the quantum allowed obviously wrong (Starlite Ceramic Industry Ltd v Hiap Huat Pottery [1973] 1 MLJ 146) or the registrar has exercised his d......
1 books & journal articles
-
Land Law
...Association Ltd [1990] 1 Ch 170 (“Byng”); Jackson v Hamlyn [1953] 2 WLR 709 (“Jackson”); and CepatWawasan Group Bhd v Datuk Lo Fui Ming [2005] 2 MLJ 57 (“CepatWawasan”). In Byng, the circumstances meant that the motion to adjourn could not be considered properly. In Jackson, there was alrea......