FRANCIS HO SEE SIN 1. ) TOH OOI PENG 2. ) HO SZE KEEN 3. ) HO WYE LUN

FRANCIS HO SEE SIN 1. ) TOH OOI PENG 2. ) HO SZE KEEN 3. ) HO WYE LUN

The Appellant's repeated promises and the circumstances surrounding the RM200,000 cheque to the company he controlled constituted an enforceable promise of indemnity such that judgment for RM200,000 with interest was warranted; conversely the Australia Claim lacked a legal basis in Malaysia because the alleged cause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-55-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Francis Ho See Sin; 1st Respondent: Toh Ooi Peng; 2nd Respondent: Ho Sze Keen; 3rd Respondent: Ho Wye Lun
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-55-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside and substituted
Legal Topics
Indemnity, Guarantee, Admissibility of Electronic Messages, Foreign Loss Claim, Interest
Contract Law Evidence Civil Procedure Indemnity Guarantee Admissibility of Electronic Messages Foreign Loss Claim Interest

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Francis Ho See Sin

Appellant

Toh Ooi Peng

1st Respondent

Ho Sze Keen

2nd Respondent

Ho Wye Lun

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's WhatsApp messages and meeting promise constituted a contract of indemnity under s.77 Contracts Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether the WhatsApp messages and email were admissible and sufficient to prove an indemnity
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents could recover Australian losses from the Appellant in Malaysia absent a foreign judgment or consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's repeated promises and the circumstances surrounding the RM200,000 cheque to the company he controlled constituted an enforceable promise of indemnity such that judgment for RM200,000 with interest was warranted; conversely the Australia Claim lacked a legal basis in Malaysia because the alleged cause of action arose in Australia, there was no proven liability of the Appellant's son in Malaysia nor consideration to bind the father, therefore that part of the Sessions Court judgment was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside and substituted

Orders

  • Set aside the whole Sessions Court judgment dated 20 May 2025
  • Enter judgment against the Appellant requiring payment of RM200,000.00 to the 1st Respondent