P
PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd
Organisation 2 cases
About PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd
PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to September 2025. PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd appeared as plaintiff in 1 case, respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (2).
How many court cases involve PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd?
PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd appears in 2 published judgments from January 2025 to September 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION 1 Whether the defendant, as the landlord, can impose additional terms to prevent the plaintiff from conducting business-to-business (B2B) transactions at the FCS, TS, and FC after the tenancy has commenced 1 This Court’s assessment 12 This Court was unable to accept the Defendant’s reasons to convert the OS into a writ action because the factual matrix is not disputed. The Tenancy Agreement and the clauses contained therein, the fact that the Defendant uses POS System and LMS to record transactions of the Lounge, and also that the Defendant had failed to provide the documents sought by the Plaintiff. 1 13 Thus, this matter is most suitable to resolve by way of OS. The Court of Appeal had ruled in NVJ Menon v The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd 2002 2 MLRA 510; 2004 3 MLJ 38; 2004 3 CLJ 96; 2004 4 AMR 164 that witnesses’ view or impressions of the contract are irrelevant because the construction of it is a question of law to be determined by the court, not by oral testimonies of witnesses. 1 14 This Court did not agree to the Defendant’s contention the relief of producing the accounts cannot be done via this OS pursuant to Order 43 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). The Defendant relied on the usage of the word ‘writ’ in Order 43 Rule 1 RoC where a writ is endorsed with a claim for an account. However, this Court understood that to be an acknowledgment that the relief for account may be granted by way of summarily without requiring a trial 1 15 After having scrutinized the Defendant’s argument that there were substantial dispute material facts in its Defence and Counterclaim, this Court found that the numerous allegations in the Defendant’s affidavits are not relevant to the facts in issue of this OS. See GT-Max Food & Beverages Sdn Bhd v Sawit Raya Sdn Bhd & Anor 2024 MLJU 2281; Ultra Racing (M) Sdn Bhd v Hai Soon Leong Sdn Bhd 2020 1 LNS 1426. 1 16 The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff’s averments contradicted those in its affidavit in High Court Suit No. BA-22NCvC-299-07/2024 (Suit 299) where the Plaintiff stated that there was no breach of the Tenancy Agreement. However, that claim was taken out of context. The Plaintiff had stated that there were “No breaches haven been alleged in respect of lounges and storage outlets and no injunction can conceivably be sought in respect of those tenancies.” This was in answer to the Defendant’s application for an injunction which had been since set aside, and irrelevant to the fact in issue of this OS to interpret the Tenancy Agreement to determine the Plaintiff’s contractual rights/the Defendant’s contractual obligations. 1 17 Therefore, the Defendant’s other claim on the issues of using the Plaintiff’s POS system and the difficulties and practices thereto were also not relevant to the determination of this OS. This Court is to make a finding on the contractual rights of the parties borne out of the Tenancy Agreement regardless of the difficulties, teething issues or the satisfaction of using the Plaintiff’s POS system. 1