N
Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus
Person 1 case
Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
ba-22ncc-19-02-2021
VIVA ODYSSEY SDN BHD v 1. ) OXFORD UNITED SDN BHD 2. ) TENGKU NURZAHERAN BINTI TENGKU HISHAM 3. ) TENGKU NURSHAFIRAN SOPHIA BINTI TENGKU HISHAM 4. ) WANG TEK LEE 5. ) LIZA SARIRIAH BINTI ABDULLAH 6. ) NURLIDA AYU BINTI IDRUS
MYHC 8 October 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus
Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning October 2025 to October 2025. Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus?
Nurlida Ayu binti Idrus appears in 1 published judgment from October 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1. At the height of the Covid pandemic, surgical gloves were one of the most sought-after commodities. At that time, the price of surgical gloves was in the region of record highs, driven by unprecedented demand and supply chain disruptions. Today, they are available at a fraction of that cost, with stocks aplenty. With demand outstripping supply during the pandemic, ready stocks were almost non-existent. Ready buyers were aplenty. So too were resellers, agents, scouts, and brokers, sourcing for this prized commodity. Promises were made by suppliers, sellers, or resellers. Many of these promises remain unfulfilled. The Plaintiff in the present case claimed that this is one such case. 1 The Core Issues 1 2. The essential issues in this Suit between the Plaintiff and the six Defendants are as follows: 1 1. Whether the First Defendant breached the contract it had entered into with the Plaintiff; 1 2. Whether the Defendants informed the Plaintiff that they were not the manufacturer of the gloves and that the gloves to be supplied were to be sourced from JHE Management Sdn Bhd; 1 3. Whether the Defendants committed fraud, misrepresentation, and conspiracy to deceive the Plaintiff into believing that there were “ready stocks” and thereby induced the Plaintiff to make full payment for the said gloves; 1 4. Whether the gloves made available to the Plaintiff on the agreed delivery date conformed to the description and quality shown to the Plaintiff on 19 November 2020; 1 5. Whether the Plaintiff was justified in terminating the contract on 25 November 2020; 1