SEM MATIC SDN BHD ABD RAHAMAN BIN WAHAB

SEM MATIC SDN BHD ABD RAHAMAN BIN WAHAB

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent caused the damage; key trial witnesses admitted the CCTV did not show the respondent, prior warnings/motive and relationship were insufficient to establish liability, therefore the Sessions Court's dismissal was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
JA-12BNCvC-33-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu: SEM MATIC SDN BHD; Respondent: ABD RAHAMAN BIN WAHAB
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 January 2024
Case Number
JA-12BNCvC-33-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court dated 25.10.2022 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Liability for Property Damage, Burden of Proof, CCTV Identification, Vicarious Liability, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Employment Law Evidence Civil Procedure Liability for Property Damage Burden of Proof CCTV Identification Vicarious Liability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SEM MATIC SDN BHD

Perayu

ABD RAHAMAN BIN WAHAB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is liable for damage to machines when CCTV identification does not incriminate him
  2. 2 Whether prior warnings and alleged motive suffice to establish intentional damage
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent caused the damage; key trial witnesses admitted the CCTV did not show the respondent, prior warnings/motive and relationship were insufficient to establish liability, therefore the Sessions Court's dismissal was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Sessions Court dated 25.10.2022 affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; Sessions Court judgment of 25.10.2022 upheld.