MINDDIOS BERHAD TING CHIN SIONG

MINDDIOS BERHAD TING CHIN SIONG

The Sessions Court's findings were not plainly wrong: plaintiff failed to prove existence of an agreement to transfer identifiable IP due to lack of specificity and contradictory evidence; burden of proof rested on plaintiff under ss.101-103 Evidence Act 1950; there was no agreement obligating defendant to pay the expenses and plaintiff's evidence about the expenses was inconsistent and included non-marketing items; appeal dismissed.

Citation
PA-12B-26-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Minddios Berhad; Respondent/defendant: Ting Chin Siong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 June 2025
Case Number
PA-12B-26-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Misrepresentation/reliance, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review Standard (plainly Wrong)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Intellectual Property Evidence Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Misrepresentation/reliance Burden of Proof Appellate Review Standard (plainly Wrong)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minddios Berhad

Appellant/plaintiff

Ting Chin Siong

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement for defendant to transfer alleged IP to plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether defendant is liable to reimburse plaintiff for RM411,156.11 expenses
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court's findings were plainly wrong such that the High Court should intervene

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court's findings were not plainly wrong: plaintiff failed to prove existence of an agreement to transfer identifiable IP due to lack of specificity and contradictory evidence; burden of proof rested on plaintiff under ss.101-103 Evidence Act 1950; there was no agreement obligating defendant to pay the expenses and plaintiff's evidence about the expenses was inconsistent and included non-marketing items; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM7000 to Respondent, costs subject to allocatur