TAN GEOK LAN v LA KUAN [2004] 2 CLJ 301

FEDERAL COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

STEVE SHIM CJ, ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD FCJ, MOHD NOOR AHMAD FCJ
Summary of Facts
1. P entered into a joint-venture agreement (JVA) with D.
2. D failed to perform the agreement within the stipulated time and P gave the D notice
to terminate the JVA.
3. The land was sold to the third party and P brought an action to the High Court for a
declaration that the JVA had been rescinded, damages for breach of contract and
special damages.
4. At the trial, Ps counsel tendered encl. 37 document as a consent order and informed
the court that the parties had reached a settlement.
Issue:
1. Whether the parties to a civil action in the High Court are bound by the agreement
reached between themselves on the mode and manner of determining certain issues of
fact which are the subject matter of proceedings
2. Whether such an agreement by the parties amounts to dictating how the trial court
should conduct its proceedings
Defendants Arguments

NA

Plaintiffs Arguments

NA

Courts decision and reasoning

1. The first issue should be answered in affirmative.

A consent judgment or order is not the less a
contract.
2. A consent order must be given its full contractual
effect.
3. The answer to the second issue is that the control
of proceedings is always a matter of the trial
judge. The parties to the action may agree as to
the manner of settling their dipute.