WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD

WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: defendant 3 failed on balance of probabilities to prove breach causing the alleged losses; documentary evidence without makers' testimony was insufficient to establish orders and losses; credible evidence (including TNB witness) showed electricity interruption was due to meter tampering; appellate intervention was unwarranted as trial judge was not plainly wrong.

Citation
BL-12B-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant 3: WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD; Respondent / Plaintiff: SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD; Defendant 1: NG HUI PING; Defendant 2: NG HUI CZI
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Case Number
BL-12B-18-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment dated 16.12.2020 upheld
Legal Topics
Quiet Possession, Breach of Lease, Damages Claim, Injunction, Appellate Intervention Tests, Documentary Evidence and Maker's Testimony, Section 114(g) Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Evidence Remedies Quiet Possession Breach of Lease Damages Claim +4 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WEPLAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Appellant / Defendant 3

SPRINGSGATE (M) SDN BHD

Respondent / Plaintiff

NG HUI PING

Defendant 1

NG HUI CZI

Defendant 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff breached the lease and denied quiet possession and access to defendant 3
  2. 2 Whether defendant 3 proved loss/damages causally attributable to plaintiff's actions
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence without maker testimony could prove the asserted orders and losses

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: defendant 3 failed on balance of probabilities to prove breach causing the alleged losses; documentary evidence without makers' testimony was insufficient to establish orders and losses; credible evidence (including TNB witness) showed electricity interruption was due to meter tampering; appellate intervention was unwarranted as trial judge was not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment dated 16.12.2020 upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court dated 16.12.2020 is upheld