APEX CLINIC SDN BHD (Company No.: 639641-P) LIM CHIANG YANG

APEX CLINIC SDN BHD (Company No.: 639641-P) LIM CHIANG YANG

The Magistrate erred by ignoring the binding Statement of Agreed Facts and by undervaluing admissible invoices and the Defendant's admissions; properly admitted documentary evidence and the Defendant's failures to prove alleged payments or coercion meant the Plaintiff established its claim on the balance of probabilities; the Defendant's defamation counterclaim failed for want of pleaded particulars (the words complained of) and was rightly dismissed.

Citation
JA-11BNCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: APEX CLINIC SDN BHD; Respondent/defendant: LIM CHIANG YANG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 December 2020
Case Number
JA-11BNCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment for Services, Admissions and Agreed Facts, Documentary Evidence Admissibility, Adverse Inference, Pleadings and Issues, Burden of Proof, Pre Trial Case Management
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Contract Evidence Defamation Civil Procedure Payment for Services Admissions and Agreed Facts Documentary Evidence Admissibility +4 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 8 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APEX CLINIC SDN BHD

Appellant/plaintiff

LIM CHIANG YANG

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Magistrate's Court / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of agreed facts was binding and precluded relitigation of which package applied
  2. 2 Whether invoices and receipts were admissible and what weight to attach to them
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference should have been drawn for failure to produce witnesses or documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate erred by ignoring the binding Statement of Agreed Facts and by undervaluing admissible invoices and the Defendant's admissions; properly admitted documentary evidence and the Defendant's failures to prove alleged payments or coercion meant the Plaintiff established its claim on the balance of probabilities; the Defendant's defamation counterclaim failed for want of pleaded particulars (the words complained of) and was rightly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed