Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate interference with findings of fact

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2024

MOHD KHAIRUL AZWAN BIN ZAKARIA [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(SH)-55-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

SH
Case number

W-05(SH)-55-02/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the prosecution proved possession and trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; the chain of custody and identity of the drugs were intact despite immaterial discrepancies; the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under s37(da) DDA; no appellate intervention warranted; appeals dismissed and sentences affirmed.
14 Jul 2023

Mohd Azzeli Bin Hussin 1. ) TAN CHEE CHUAN FRUITS SUPPLY 2. ) Hiap Seng Heng Construction Sdn Bhd 3. ) Kumaresan A/l Mutoraman

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-146-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-146-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is allowed because the prosthesis proposed by the defendants was not shown to be registered/approved under the Medical Device Act 2012 and therefore could not form the basis of an award; the plaintiff's proposed MDA‑registered prosthesis is appropriate; and no deduction for future contingencies should be made in assessing future prosthesis costs after the statutory amendments to the Civil Law Act. The High Court awarded RM 3,160,000 for prosthesis and dismissed the respondents' cross‑appeal seeking a one‑third deduction.
8 Jul 2022

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

Citation

AA-42LB-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42LB-12-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court found the trial judge erred by substituting the prosecution's DNAA application with an A&D despite the prosecution demonstrating good grounds to suspend proceedings temporarily to conduct further targeted investigations (Lazada and telco), and given delays were attributable in part to COVID restrictions and judicial changes; accordingly the A&D was set aside and replaced with DNAA for all 34 charges.
7 Jun 2022

VIRGO INSPIRASI SDN BHD PARK RITE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-23-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-23-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the complaints about lack of licence/authority and unidentified parking bays were not pleaded at trial and thus could not be raised on appeal; independent evidence (agreement from TTDI Harta) established plaintiff's authority and the trial judge's factual findings, including that the defendant damaged nine wheel clamps, were supported by evidence and not shown to be plainly wrong or the result of misdirection.
1 Jun 2022

GALVACO INDUSTRIES SDN BHD NEU ESTATES SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-21-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-21-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The retention-of-title clauses in the plaintiff's progress claims and invoices, viewed against s25 SOGA and evidence, meant title to the unpaid guardrails remained with the plaintiff until full payment; because the guardrails were supplied and installed but unpaid (RM384,149.53), plaintiff retained ownership and was entitled to enter the project site and remove guardrails equivalent to that unpaid sum, subject to conditions (no damage, removal in presence of respondent, plaintiff bears removal costs).

Malaysia Case Law

MOHD KHAIRUL AZWAN BIN ZAKARIA [Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Mohd Azzeli Bin Hussin 1. ) TAN CHEE CHUAN FRUITS SUPPLY 2. ) Hiap Seng Heng Construction Sdn Bhd 3. ) Kumaresan A/l Mutoraman

[ ] WAN FATIHAH BINTI NADZRIN

VIRGO INSPIRASI SDN BHD PARK RITE SDN BHD

GALVACO INDUSTRIES SDN BHD NEU ESTATES SDN. BHD.