Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate interference with factual findings

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2023

WONG TZE JIUN ISMA BIN BAHAR

Citation

BL-12BNCC-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12BNCC-1-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Sessions Court correctly found the defendant received RM160,000, the defendant failed to prove that the funds were advances: his trial evidence was inconsistent with his pleaded defence, corroborative witnesses were not called, and documentary evidence accounted for only RM15,000. On balance of probabilities the transfers were loans and the appellant proved his claim, so the appellate court was justified in intervening and entering judgment for the plaintiff.
14 Apr 2022

1. ) SIVANYANAM A/L GAHASAN 2. ) LEEBOH TRADING & TRANSPORT SDN BHD NURSAFARINA BINTI AHMAD

Citation

BA-12B-29-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-29-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge materially misdirected himself by failing to properly consider unchallenged eyewitness SD2 and the investigating officer's findings; the deceased was primarily at fault for overtaking and failing to keep a lookout in the emergency lane, and the Defendants failed to prove they provided sufficient warning but bore only 25% liability while the Plaintiff (deceased's estate) bore 75% liability; appellate intervention was warranted to set aside the 50:50 apportionment.
19 Feb 2021

Neelavan a/l Viswanathen 1. Baramytasam a/l Karukanan 2. Karunakanan a/l V. Raman 3. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad

Citation

BA-11B-3-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-3-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the High Court, placing itself in the same position as the Sessions Court Judge, concluded no collision occurred between WXY 2474 and WEG 572 and therefore the 1st Defendant was not negligent; the Sessions Court's factual findings were rational, supported by inconsistencies in police reports and witness evidence, retraction and statutory declaration, absence of contemporaneous damage evidence and relevant presumptions under the Evidence Act 1950, and accordingly the appellate court must affirm the trial decision.

Malaysia Case Law

WONG TZE JIUN ISMA BIN BAHAR

1. ) SIVANYANAM A/L GAHASAN 2. ) LEEBOH TRADING & TRANSPORT SDN BHD NURSAFARINA BINTI AHMAD

Neelavan a/l Viswanathen 1. Baramytasam a/l Karukanan 2. Karunakanan a/l V. Raman 3. Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad