Mohd Zawawi bin Taib Mulberry Paper Sdn Bhd

Mohd Zawawi bin Taib Mulberry Paper Sdn Bhd

The Sessions Court's factual findings that the letter of guarantee existed and was signed by the Appellant were supported by contemporaneous evidence and credible witness testimony; the Appellant failed to prove forgery on the balance of probabilities (no police report, inconsistent and comparable signatures); issues not raised at trial regarding validity and formal defects could not be properly considered on appeal; therefore the trial judgment was not plainly wrong and must be affirmed.

Citation
BA-12BNCC-15-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / 2nd Defendant: MOHD ZAWAWI BIN TAIB; Respondent / Plaintiff: MULBERRY PAPERS SDN. BHD.; 1st Defendant: ELPOS PRINT SDN. BHD.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Case Number
BA-12BNCC-15-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal After Full Trial (judgment on the Merits)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Guarantee (surety), Forgery of Signature, Burden of Proof, Signature Comparison (s73 Evidence Act), Appellate Intervention/plainly Wrong Test, Continuing Guarantee
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Company Law (director Liability/surety) Guarantee (surety) Forgery of Signature Burden of Proof Signature Comparison (s73 Evidence Act) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHD ZAWAWI BIN TAIB

Appellant / 2nd Defendant

MULBERRY PAPERS SDN. BHD.

Respondent / Plaintiff

ELPOS PRINT SDN. BHD.

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Appeal After Full Trial (judgment on the Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter of guarantee was validly executed and constituted a binding guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant signed the letter of guarantee or whether it was forged
  3. 3 Which party bore the burden of proof on validity/forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court's factual findings that the letter of guarantee existed and was signed by the Appellant were supported by contemporaneous evidence and credible witness testimony; the Appellant failed to prove forgery on the balance of probabilities (no police report, inconsistent and comparable signatures); issues not raised at trial regarding validity and formal defects could not be properly considered on appeal; therefore the trial judgment was not plainly wrong and must be affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Sessions Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and Sessions Court decision affirmed
  • Judgment in favour of Respondent for RM399,421.65 with interest and costs as awarded by Sessions Court affirmed