CHEAH HOCK CHUAN NG FOOK TEN (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya Pretige G

CHEAH HOCK CHUAN NG FOOK TEN (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya Pretige G

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings that the vehicle transfers were contra payments supported by a duly executed Letter of Indemnity, the appellant's admissions (including WhatsApp/audio) and the absence of adequate contrary evidence meant the appellant failed to prove a sale or that the indemnity was void; appellate intervention was unwarranted as the trial court was not plainly wrong and the parol evidence rule barred contradicting the written indemnity.

Citation
JA-12B-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Cheah Hock Chuan; Respondent/defendant: Ng Fook Ten (trading as Prestige German Auto, JM0657729-K)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 September 2022
Case Number
JA-12B-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Determination on Appeal (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity, Parol Evidence Rule, Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Standard of Appellate Review (plainly Wrong)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Indemnity Parol Evidence Rule Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities) Standard of Appellate Review (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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheah Hock Chuan

Appellant/plaintiff

Ng Fook Ten (trading as Prestige German Auto, JM0657729-K)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Determination on Appeal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfers of two vehicles were transfers for sale or transfers by way of contra payment (indemnity)
  2. 2 Whether the Letter of Indemnity was admissible and conclusive against oral evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's factual findings were plainly wrong and warrant appellate interference

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings that the vehicle transfers were contra payments supported by a duly executed Letter of Indemnity, the appellant's admissions (including WhatsApp/audio) and the absence of adequate contrary evidence meant the appellant failed to prove a sale or that the indemnity was void; appellate intervention was unwarranted as the trial court was not plainly wrong and the parol evidence rule barred contradicting the written indemnity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed