PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN. BHD. LIVE CAPITAL SDN. BHD.

PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN. BHD. LIVE CAPITAL SDN. BHD.

Because the Appellant produced the original payment vouchers which DW2 admitted signing and produced contemporaneous documentary evidence (cheques, ledger), the evidential burden shifted to the Respondent to prove forgery/tampering; the Respondent failed to adduce credible evidence or contemporaneous accounts to rebut the vouchers; consequently the court concluded the payments were advances and entered judgment for RM7,000,000 with 5% p.a. interest from date of writ, set aside the High Court decision and awarded costs to the Appellant.

Citation
W-02(NCC)(W)-2141-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Tenggara Kapital Sdn Bhd
Court
NCC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Case Number
W-02(NCC)(W)-2141-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (full Trial)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for Appellant in sum of RM7,000,000 with interest and costs
Legal Topics
Advance Vs Commission, Admissibility of Documents, Forgery Allegations, Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act 1950, Board Resolutions and Corporate Approvals
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Litigation Contract Evidence Commercial/company Law Advance Vs Commission Admissibility of Documents Forgery Allegations Burden of Proof Under Evidence Act 1950 +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Tenggara Kapital Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (full Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RM7,000,000 was an advance/interest-free loan or a brokerage/commission
  2. 2 Admissibility and authenticity of payment vouchers (Exhs P.1 and P.2) and handwriting/notation dispute
  3. 3 Whether the evidential burden shifted to the Respondent to prove forgery/tampering

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Appellant produced the original payment vouchers which DW2 admitted signing and produced contemporaneous documentary evidence (cheques, ledger), the evidential burden shifted to the Respondent to prove forgery/tampering; the Respondent failed to adduce credible evidence or contemporaneous accounts to rebut the vouchers; consequently the court concluded the payments were advances and entered judgment for RM7,000,000 with 5% p.a. interest from date of writ, set aside the High Court decision and awarded costs to the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for Appellant in sum of RM7,000,000 with interest and costs

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Appellant for RM7,000,000.00
  • Interest at 5% per annum from date of filing of the writ