Murad & Foo v Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang; Ong Chin Lee
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia |
| Date | 1997 |
| Year | 1997 |
| Court | Unspecified court (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
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
8066 cases
- Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP and Another Appeal
-
R: and Others v City and County of Swansea Council
...to members occur in many contexts. Perhaps most often they appear in the context of the planning law. In Oxton Farms and Another v Selby District Council [1997] EWCA Civ 404 Judge LJ (as he then was) in a short concurring judgment had this to say about such challenges:- "The report by a pla......
-
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (No. 4) (Reduction of Damages)
..."intentional" torts: Alliance & Leicester Building Society v. Edgestop [1993] 1 WLR 1462 (Mummery, J.) (deceit), Corp. Nacional etc. v. Sogemin Metals [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1396 (Carnwath J.) (conspiracy and bribery), and Nationwide B.S. v. Thimbleby [1999] Ll. L.R. 359 (Blackburne, J.) (deceit) ......
-
Shore v Sedgwick Financial Services Ltd
...was completed, members would lose the right to a cash equivalent: see the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and Law Debenture Trust Corp. plc v. Pensions Ombudsman [1997] 3 All ER 233, 236–239. This was not a matter put to Mr. Waddingham and, if this is what lay behind Mr. Ormond's initial view that......
Get Started for Free