G
Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan
Person 1 case
Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-555-08-2021
GEH SOK LAN @ GOAY SOOK LAN v VENUS ASSETS SDN BHD
MYHC 8 April 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan
Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning April 2025 to April 2025. Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan?
Geh Sok Lan @ Goay Sook Lan appears in 1 published judgment from April 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).
Practice Areas
There were two (2) applications heard together before the court. The first was Enclosure 74, in which the defendant moved the court pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC 2012”) to strike out paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and relief no. 1 of the Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. Secondly, there was Enclosure 76, which was the plaintiff's application to amend its Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim dated 14 August 2021. 1 As for Enclosure 74, the court found that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's cause of action arose from the date of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and not from the date of the purported discovery of fraudulent information as alleged by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's cause of action, which challenged the validity of the extension of time granted by the Minister of Housing and Local Government as incorporated in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, accrued on 22 July 2013, the date on which the Sale and Purchase Agreement was executed. Thus, the plaintiff must bring her claim for breach of contract within 6 years, i.e. by 22 July 2019, and not by 14 August 2021. It was at this point that the plaintiff, as the purchaser, could initiate an action against the defendant. 1 For the amendment application in Enclosure 76, the court found that there existed an inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing this amendment application. In this regard, there has already been a disclosure of the relevant facts in Recital D of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, which should have prompted the plaintiff to plead accordingly from the very beginning. 1 In light of the above, Enclosure 74 was allowed while Enclosure 76 was dismissed, both with costs. 1