Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference under evidence act 1950 s114(g)

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2025

CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-584-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-584-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove actual loss causally attributable to Boiler No.2 being non-operational; audited accounts without supporting contemporaneous sales/order evidence were insufficient; failure to produce such evidence permitted an adverse inference under s114(g); the plaintiff's averaging methodology was unsupported by real data and contradicted by prior period results.
14 Jun 2024

SANJUNG SEPANG SDN BHD KIENSON HARDWARE SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BNCC-23-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-23-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's claim for interest failed because it did not produce the invoices necessary to prove when payments were due and how interest accrued, justifying an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950; defendant's counterclaim failed because the plaintiff's acceptance contained a binding price validity condition relieving it of obligation to deliver at the earlier price, therefore no liability for defendant's additional procurement costs.
30 Sept 2019

Izwanuddin bin Kasim

Citation

J-05(M)-456-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

J-05(M)-456-10/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the cumulative circumstantial and direct evidence, supported by independent witnesses and forensic pathology (stab wound to the heart), irresistibly pointed to the appellant as the killer; SP14 was not an accomplice requiring special corroboration; failure to call Ros Elly and Hoo Chee Keong did not prejudice the prosecution or create a material gap; therefore conviction for murder and death sentence were safe and the appeal was dismissed.
25 Sept 2019

KOPERASI TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. MOHD DANIAL BIN MOHD ROZALI (No. K/P.: 880429-01-5175) 2. BAHARUDDIN BIN ABDUL LATIP (No. K/P.: 790328-04-5245) (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya ALISRA ASSOCIATES (No. Perniagaan: MA0190087-A)) 3. ZULMAJDI BI

Citation

WA-22NCC-70-02-2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-70-02-2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found First Defendant solely responsible for devising and representing a non-existent Prudential‑sanctioned group Benefit Scheme and committed fraudulent misrepresentation; Plaintiff proved entitlement to return of unpaid premiums RM1,902,799.80 and damages flowing from deceit; Plaintiff failed to prove nexus or concert between First Defendant and Second/Third Defendants, thus claims against them and counterclaim by Second Defendant dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

SANJUNG SEPANG SDN BHD KIENSON HARDWARE SDN. BHD.

Izwanuddin bin Kasim

KOPERASI TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. MOHD DANIAL BIN MOHD ROZALI (No. K/P.: 880429-01-5175) 2. BAHARUDDIN BIN ABDUL LATIP (No. K/P.: 790328-04-5245) (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya ALISRA ASSOCIATES (No. Perniagaan: MA0190087-A)) 3. ZULMAJDI BI