Su Tiang Joo 1. Tribunal For Consumer Claims 2. Mercedes-Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Su Tiang Joo 1. Tribunal For Consumer Claims 2. Mercedes-Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had locus standi as a consumer, but the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and powers, respondent Mercedes‑Benz discharged the burden under s24E by documentary and oral evidence, the 3‑year standard form warranty was valid and binding, Part IIIA did not assist...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
W-01(A)-139-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Su Tiang Joo; Respondent (tribunal): Tribunal for Consumer Claims; Respondent (manufacturer/supplier): Mercedes‑Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 October 2019
Case Number
W-01(A)-139-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (judicial Review of Tribunal Award) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Warranty, Locus Standi, Burden of Proof, Standard Form Contracts, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Consumer Protection Act 1999
Consumer Law Administrative Law Contract Law Tribunal Procedure Warranty Locus Standi Burden of Proof Standard Form Contracts +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Su Tiang Joo

Appellant

Tribunal for Consumer Claims

Respondent (tribunal)

Mercedes‑Benz Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Respondent (manufacturer/supplier)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (judicial Review of Tribunal Award) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant had locus standi to sue before the Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law or acted irrationally in dismissing the reheard claim
  3. 3 Whether respondent 2 discharged burden of proof under section 24E CPA 1999 as directed

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had locus standi as a consumer, but the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and powers, respondent Mercedes‑Benz discharged the burden under s24E by documentary and oral evidence, the 3‑year standard form warranty was valid and binding, Part IIIA did not assist appellant, and there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs