WONG TZE JIUN ISMA BIN BAHAR

WONG TZE JIUN ISMA BIN BAHAR

Although the Sessions Court correctly found the defendant received RM160,000, the defendant failed to prove that the funds were advances: his trial evidence was inconsistent with his pleaded defence, corroborative witnesses were not called, and documentary evidence accounted for only RM15,000. On balance of probabilities the transfers were loans and the appellant proved his claim, so the appellate court was justified in intervening and entering judgment for the plaintiff.

Citation
BL-12BNCC-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: WONG TZE JIUN; Respondent/defendant: ISMA BIN BAHAR
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 July 2023
Case Number
BL-12BNCC-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Sessions Court set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Loan Versus Advance, Burden of Proof, Assessment of Witness Credibility, Appellate Interference With Factual Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Loan Versus Advance Burden of Proof Assessment of Witness Credibility Appellate Interference With Factual Findings

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG TZE JIUN

Appellant/plaintiff

ISMA BIN BAHAR

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RM160,000 transfers were a personal loan or an advance for company purposes
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved the loan on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the appellate court should overturn the Sessions Court factual finding

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Sessions Court correctly found the defendant received RM160,000, the defendant failed to prove that the funds were advances: his trial evidence was inconsistent with his pleaded defence, corroborative witnesses were not called, and documentary evidence accounted for only RM15,000. On balance of probabilities the transfers were loans and the appellant proved his claim, so the appellate court was justified in intervening and entering judgment for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Sessions Court set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 07.10.2022 set aside