1. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD 2. TELAGAMAS MOTORS SDN BHD 1. ALLAN CHONG TECK KHIN 2. HO YOKE PENG

1. UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD 2. TELAGAMAS MOTORS SDN BHD 1. ALLAN CHONG TECK KHIN 2. HO YOKE PENG

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court plainly misappreciated the expert evidence: the plaintiffs' own experts' reports and cross-examination showed vibration readings fell within the comfortable range under ISO 2631 and the vehicle performed no worse than comparison vehicles; the trial judge erred in treating expert evidence as unassailable absent a contrary expert and failed to give weight to concessions elicited in cross-examination; moreover the 2nd plaintiff did not testify and could not establish inducement. Therefore there was no proven defect or actionable misrepresentation and the High Court judgment was set aside.

Citation
P-02(NCVC)(w)-1824-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD (60576-K); Appellant / Defendant: TELAGAMAS MOTORS SDN BHD (665407-K); Respondent / Plaintiff: Allan Chong Teck Khin; Respondent / Plaintiff: Ho Yoke Peng
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Case Number
P-02(NCVC)(w)-1824-10/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Quantum (judgment on Appeal Delivered)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment on liability set aside; costs awarded to appellants
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, False or Misleading Representation, Statutory Duty Under Consumer Protection Act 1999, Evaluation of Expert Evidence, Appellate Review Standards, Damages and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Consumer Protection Tort (misrepresentation) Contract Evidence (expert Evidence) Misrepresentation False or Misleading Representation Statutory Duty Under Consumer Protection Act 1999 Evaluation of Expert Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UMW TOYOTA MOTOR SDN BHD (60576-K)

Appellant / Defendant

TELAGAMAS MOTORS SDN BHD (665407-K)

Appellant / Defendant

Allan Chong Teck Khin

Respondent / Plaintiff

Ho Yoke Peng

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability and Quantum (judgment on Appeal Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle suffered abnormal and excessive vibrations constituting a defect
  2. 2 Whether defendants made false or misleading representations that induced the purchase
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence can only be challenged by adducing another expert

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court plainly misappreciated the expert evidence: the plaintiffs' own experts' reports and cross-examination showed vibration readings fell within the comfortable range under ISO 2631 and the vehicle performed no worse than comparison vehicles; the trial judge erred in treating expert evidence as unassailable absent a contrary expert and failed to give weight to concessions elicited in cross-examination; moreover the 2nd plaintiff did not testify and could not establish inducement. Therefore there was no proven defect or actionable misrepresentation and the High Court judgment was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment on liability set aside; costs awarded to appellants

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • High Court judgment set aside