Read the full judgment text of CACV 214/2014 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 June 2015.
1. I have read the judgment of Kwan JA in draft and I respectfully agree with her analysis in respect of questions (1) and (2). I only wish to add this: in the context of question (1), Mr Sussex SC contended that the arrangement between MMG and AMIL could not be a loan as there was no covenant to repay in the Agreement. Whilst it is correct that there is no express general covenant to repay in the Agreement (other than a covenant to repay under clause 3.2(b) in the event of the sale of the Vesse
Cites 5 cases