Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of expert evidence

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2024

KESAVAN A/L KOPALA KRISHNAN (Mendakwa melalui ibu dan sahabat wakilnya Batmah a/p Thangaveloo) 1. ) SARASWATHY A/P KANDASAMY 2. ) VIKNESH A/L ARIVANANDAR

Citation

BA-12B-15-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-15-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed in part: substituted award for future surgeries to RM12,666.67 (to correct mathematical/exclusion error), awarded RM15,000 for pain from future surgeries, awarded RM50,000 for loss of earning capacity, allowed RM3,300 travel costs and RM10,833.70 UMMC medical bills; Sessions Court assessments on remaining items were affirmed where no error of principle or manifest inadequacy was shown; no order as to costs.
10 Jun 2024

1. ) XXXX 2. ) SA'DIAH BINTI SAADON 1. ) XXXX 2. ) IBRAHIM BIN AB GHANI

Citation

JB-12ANCvC-12-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12ANCvC-12-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Both appeals are dismissed. The High Court held the LSJ's allowance to produce the forensic report was an interlocutory ruling made in the course of trial and not appealable; alternatively, the LSJ did not err in exercising discretion to admit the report given stage of trial and absence of real prejudice. Appeal against refusal to stay was nugatory and the Record of Appeal in Appeal No.12 was defective for failing to include pleadings. Plaintiffs were granted liberty to recall witnesses regarding the forensic report. Costs awarded: RM1,000 for Appeal No.11 and RM2,000 for Appeal No.12.
26 Jun 2023

JAMILAH BINTI ABU KASSIM @ RAHIM AMIR HASSAN BIN MD ARIF

Citation

BJ-A72NCvC-8-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-A72NCvC-8-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to give required notice and request for repair within the contractual defect liability period after retention was held and subsequently released; plaintiff also failed to prove defendant's negligence and causation on the balance of probabilities and plaintiff's expert report was not admissible as it did not comply with mandatory rules for expert evidence; therefore no liability for the alleged defects and damages.
23 May 2023

GOH POH YOKE 1. ) AMBANK (M) BERHAD 2. ) AMINVESTMENT BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-121-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-121-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The expert report was inadmissible because it offered legal conclusions and interpretations of domestic regulations and contractual matters that are for the court to decide; additionally, the court properly exercised its power under Order 34 rule 2 ROC to direct filing of witness statements or proposed questions to assess witness relevance for trial.
2 Aug 2022

NG KHIAN HEE [ ]

Citation

BL-41H-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-41H-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate relied on an inadequate expert report without specific findings on the expert's qualifications and comprehension of exhibit displays, and because the prosecution failed to call or offer a material eyewitness and left significant investigative gaps (missing machine, unexamined CCTV/computer, lack of translation and chain of custody issues); these deficiencies undermined proof beyond reasonable doubt, warranting quashing of conviction and acquittal. The prosecution's cross-appeal against sentence was dismissed because conviction could not be main…
9 Feb 2022

PENDAKWARAYA Tan Sze Meng

Citation

JG-83D-99-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-83D-99-03/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved identity of the substance (Cannabis, 45.45g net), continuity of custody and that the drugs were in open proximity in the accused's exclusive room together with clothing and bankbook linking the accused; clerical marking errors and absence of photos/fingerprints/DNA were not fatal; defence failed to give adequate Alcontara particulars or evidence to raise reasonable doubt; accused convicted under s.6 ADB read with s.39A(1) and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment; whipping not imposed due to s.289 CPC; execution of sentence stayed on conditions pendi…
10 Jan 2022

MERCU PUSU DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SETARA JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-202-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-202-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court accepted the plaintiff's valuer evidence as the reliable measure of market rent because the valuer was qualified, had affirmed responsibility by statutory declaration and gave oral evidence; the defendant did not produce any expert valuation to rebut or validly challenge the methodology or comparables; procedural non-compliance with Order 40A r.3 was a curable irregularity in the interests of justice and did not preclude admissibility. Accordingly market rental fixed at RM87,338.28/month and plaintiff awarded assessed rentals (from 04.06.2019 limited start date), VR cost, interest a…
17 Nov 2021

LIM WAI WANG

Citation

CA-45A-11-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CA-45A-11-10/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the prosecution proved all essential elements: the seized items were dangerous drugs as per chemical analysis, the accused was in possession and control (seen holding the box, drugs located in the car he used), the quantity and packaging supported an inference of trafficking, chain of custody was maintained and exhibits were positively identified, and the defence failed to raise reasonable doubt; therefore the accused was guilty and sentenced according to statutory penalties including mandatory death for specified trafficking counts and imprisonment for the methamphetamine cou…
15 Jul 2021

ERA KEMUNCAK JAYA (M) SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 652898-U) TENAGA SWITCHGEAR SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 321326-M)

Citation

BA-22C-61-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-61-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the written LA/LOI/PO constituted the complete contract and did not incorporate TNB's Schedule; expert evidence cannot displace the court's role in construing contractual terms or determine breach/remoteness/quantum where the court is competent to decide; defendant had an implied contractual right to grant EOTs and in fact granted four EOTs; delays were caused by employer and third parties not the contractor; defendant breached by failing to pay and by wrongful termination; plaintiff entitled to recover unpaid works and specified consequential losses with interest; defenda…
28 Nov 2019

MRCB BUILDERS SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 300947-T) WAZAM VENTURES SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 860793-W)

Citation

BA-24C-69-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24C-69-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

CIPAA does not confer a general right to file a rejoinder after an adjudication reply; the adjudicator lawfully refused leave to file a rejoinder within his s 25 discretion and complied with s 12(4) by giving reasons; no breach of the second rule of natural justice was established or shown to be material; the High Court will not review merits or reweigh evidence absent a decisive breach; therefore MRCB's originating summons and application for stay are dismissed and Wazam is granted leave to enforce the adjudication decision with costs awarded to Wazam.