Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference for withholding evidence

Legal area

Court

8 Jul 2025

1. ) KUSATEX SDN BHD 2. ) SHAFIQURRAHMAN BIN HAJI SHAMSUDDIN WIRA FOAM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-25-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-25-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove existence and performance of a binding contract because it did not produce invoices, delivery orders or corroborative documentary evidence of delivery or acceptance, and gave no explanation for their absence warranting an adverse inference under s114(g); the POs alone and oral assertions were insufficient to establish acceptance or consideration; therefore the Sessions Court's finding of a valid contract was plainly wrong and the defendants' appeal on the main claim is allowed while the counterclaim fails for lack of proof.
16 Mar 2023

Fung Lee Mee @ Jellsie 1. ) Fung Shaw Yiew @ Jellfer 2. ) Fung Siew Fa @ Emily

Citation

S-01(NCvC)(W)-390-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

S-01(NCvC)(W)-390-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside. On the balance of probabilities the court found the MOT and transfers were valid or, alternatively, the evidence and practice supported the legitimacy of the transfer and the existence of a trust for the mother; the bank was a bona fide subsequent chargee entitled to deferred indefeasibility of its charge. Result: plaintiffs' claim dismissed and costs awarded to appellants.
28 Jul 2021

KUMARAGURU A/L RETHINAM [NO K/P: 800317-07-5303] 1. ) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 2. ) 2. PENGARAH PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, BATU GAJAH 3. ) 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-44-57-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-44-57-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because there was conflicting testimony about whether the applicant was denied the statutory right to counsel and to call witnesses and because the respondents refused to produce the Board minutes (material evidence) the court drew an adverse inference that the minutes would be unfavorable; the court found non-compliance with s.9 and Rules 4(3) and 5(2),(3) and concluded the detention was unlawful and ordered issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) KUSATEX SDN BHD 2. ) SHAFIQURRAHMAN BIN HAJI SHAMSUDDIN WIRA FOAM INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Fung Lee Mee @ Jellsie 1. ) Fung Shaw Yiew @ Jellfer 2. ) Fung Siew Fa @ Emily

KUMARAGURU A/L RETHINAM [NO K/P: 800317-07-5303] 1. ) 1. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 2. ) 2. PENGARAH PUSAT PEMULIHAN AKHLAK, BATU GAJAH 3. ) 3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA