Murad & Foo v Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang; Ong Chin Lee

JurisdictionMalaysia
CourtUnspecified court (Malaysia)
Year1997
Date1997

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
8065 cases
  • Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP and Another Appeal
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • A v G & N
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 17 July 2009
    ...his confusion of the nature of the operation of the two orders.” 188 There is an echo of this perhaps, though he did not in fact refer to Re B, in Wilson LJ's observation in Re W [2009] EWCA Civ 370 at para [21] that: “In circumstances in which a shared order for residence is made, the orde......
  • HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2)
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 19 June 2009
    ...and the interest of a party or third person in maintaining confidentiality of personal data: see, for example, Z v Finland (1997) 25 EHRR 371 at paragraphs 94 and following. The Strasbourg Court held in that case that disclosure in a judgment of the Swedish Court of Appeal of the name and s......
  • Re T&N Ltd and other companies
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 21 October 2004
    ...administers. This is the case even in an ancillary winding-up in England of a foreign-registered company: see In re Bank of Credit and Commerce International (No 10) [1997] Ch 213. Further, if the position were reached that the English Court considered that CVAs or schemes of arrangement de......
  • Get Started for Free