Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appellate review/plainly wrong test

Legal area

Court

27 Dec 2024

Khor Gaik Thiam Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-24-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-24-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court allowed the consolidated appeals, set aside the Court of Appeal decisions and reinstated the High Court findings because (1) recantation at trial is not governed by a special two‑stage leave regime and is a matter of assessment by the trial judge; (2) the Khoon Chye Hin approach (scrutinise but do not automatically reject the rest of testimony) applies when a witness changes testimony; (3) the SSA was proven and valid on the balance of probabilities; (4) the onus to prove forgery rests on the party alleging it (Henry) and was not discharged; (5) the attesting solicitor’s evi…
29 Aug 2024

TIONG YONG JIE STANLEY LEE JIAN XUN

Citation

BA-12BCY-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BCY-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

When the Defendant's message is read in full and against the preceding exchange, it does not impute dishonesty, criminality or moral failing and would not lower the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of ordinary community members; the Plaintiff failed to prove actual reputational harm on the balance of probabilities; alternatively the communication was protected by qualified privilege and fair comment; appellate interference is unwarranted as the trial judge's findings were not plainly wrong.
31 Jul 2023

1. ) AK BINA TRADING & SERVICES 2. ) AHMAD KHIR BIN SERAJUDIN berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AK Bina Trading & Services (002543002-V) 3. ) YAMSESNI BINTI ISKANDAR DZULKANAIN berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AK Bina Trading & Services (00254

Citation

WA-12BC-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BC-18-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial court's orders for the Defendants to indemnify and to pay for demolition, reconstruction and professional costs (sub‑paras (i)(b)–(d) of the trial judgment) were set aside because no express or implied indemnity was pleaded or established in the Letter of Award and the Plaintiff failed to plead or adduce evidence of the quantum of special damages for reconstruction and professional appointments; the trial judge provided no reasoning justifying those orders and was therefore plainly wrong.
12 May 2023

LOW XUE LI (Pemilik tunggal perniagaan yang dikenali sebagai TIONGER ENTERPRISE No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan. 201603223169 (002561432-W) ASUWARIS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-11BM-1-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BM-1-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate erred in accepting an alleged oral variation that contradicted the clear written Terms and Conditions requiring variations to be in writing and signed by a director, and in failing to apply ss.91-92 of the Evidence Act; the evidence and admissions showed the installed cubicles deviated from the written specifications and no valid written VO existed, warranting setting aside the Magistrate's decision and remittal for assessment of damages.
14 Feb 2022

Nur Syazila Binti Soleh Wan Nor Suhaizan Binti Khairuddin

Citation

AA-11B-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-11B-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found that the learned Magistrate had materially misappreciated and overlooked key contemporaneous evidence (medical reports, police reports, photographs and birth certificate) and had made erroneous factual findings; applying the plainly wrong test the appeal was allowed, the Magistrate's decision set aside, the Plaintiff's claim dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim allowed, with damages awarded to the Defendant totalling RM30,500, interest and costs.
25 Aug 2020

Cosmo Maju Sdn Bhd Erallex Sdn Bhd Law Hock Meng

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court upheld the Sessions Court finding that the 74 doors were defective and that rectification costs of RM92,452.84 were properly awarded, but set aside the orders requiring Cosmo Maju to dismantle, re-supply, reinstall and paint the doors because those orders exceeded the supplier's contractual scope, amounted to specific performance of services the court could not supervise and would unjustly enrich the buyer. The court allowed Cosmo Maju's claim for unpaid value RM189,728.90 subject to set-off of RM92,452.84, resulting in RM97,276.06 payable by Erallex and Law Hock Meng with int…

Malaysia Case Law

Khor Gaik Thiam Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

TIONG YONG JIE STANLEY LEE JIAN XUN

1. ) AK BINA TRADING & SERVICES 2. ) AHMAD KHIR BIN SERAJUDIN berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AK Bina Trading & Services (002543002-V) 3. ) YAMSESNI BINTI ISKANDAR DZULKANAIN berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya AK Bina Trading & Services (00254

LOW XUE LI (Pemilik tunggal perniagaan yang dikenali sebagai TIONGER ENTERPRISE No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan. 201603223169 (002561432-W) ASUWARIS SDN BHD

Nur Syazila Binti Soleh Wan Nor Suhaizan Binti Khairuddin

Cosmo Maju Sdn Bhd Erallex Sdn Bhd Law Hock Meng