Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-examination of affidavit deponents

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2025

PEMPETISYEN YHL PROPERTY SDN BHD SILVERON BUILDERS SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN Chee Kam Fatt

Citation

JA-28NCC-15-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-28NCC-15-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Respondent failed to prove a bona fide dispute over the existence or quantum of the debt or to demonstrate special circumstances justifying a stay; the judgment is enforceable absent a stay, pending leave application does not suspend enforceability, and the cross-examination application was unnecessary and belated because the affidavits and documentary evidence sufficiently established the statutory insolvency test. Both interlocutory applications were dismissed with costs.
9 Jan 2025

LIEW MOONG JU 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @ NG TING MIEW 3. ) Ng Jin Yeong

Citation

WA-24NCC-194-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-194-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed conversion because the plaintiff established material, substantial conflicts in affidavit evidence and pleas of fraud concerning alleged misuse of company funds, and the plaintiff needs to subpoena witnesses who did not affirm affidavits; under Order 28 r 8 ROC 2012 and binding authority (Ting Ling Kiew), these factors warrant continuation as if begun by writ rather than summary disposal by originating summons.
18 Jul 2024

KERK HAN MENG 1. ) LEE YU MENG 2. ) KUA CHIN WEE 3. ) WONG KOK KHEONG 4. ) SIM CHIN HU 5. ) CJ POLYMERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-547-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted leave to cross-examine because the applicant identified material and specific factual disputes that are central to the oppression claim (existence of a quasi-partnership, lawfulness of director removal and share allotment, allegations of misappropriation), affidavit evidence was insufficient to resolve questions of intent, credibility and bona fides, the application was not unduly delayed given ongoing affidavit exchange, and the interests of justice in resolving contested facts by oral testimony outweighed concerns about delay.
18 Sept 2023

THE SUMMIT SUBANG USJ MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 1. ) HO PHOY KWANG 2. ) HO PHOY CHUIN

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-839-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-839-05/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that disputes over what constitutes 'significantly different purposes' under s60(3)(b) SMA 2013 and the factual basis for multiple maintenance rates require viva voce evidence and cross-examination; conversion to writ at the interlocutory stage would be futile because the High Court had already commenced hearing and directed cross-examination, therefore Enclosure 6 seeking conversion was dismissed and the High Court was directed to continue the originating summons with liberty to cross-examine deponents.
13 Aug 2021

ULTRA RACING (M) SDN. BHD. BLUETACT SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-45-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-45-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under O.38 r.2(2) and O.92 r.4, finding the Defendant discharged the burden to justify cross-examination: Enclosure 111 was admissible for the limited purpose of determining a prima facie contempt, the application to cross-examine was made in good faith, not for delay or oppression, and cross-examination would advance the cause of justice; accordingly leave to cross-examine PW KLK was granted while the contempt determination was postponed.
2 Oct 2020

Nurul Amira for the Respondent [Messrs Edlin Ghazaly & Associates] LAIN-LAIN Roy Etican for the Petitioner [Messrs Roy & Co.]

Citation

POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-800-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

POST WINDING UP NO. WA-28NCC-800-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under s469(3) and refused Enclosure 35 because the disputed matters raised either could be decided on affidavit and contemporaneous documents, were not central to the single issue of whether a debt existed, or would convert the petition into a full trial and cause unjustified delay; no special circumstances justified ordering cross-examination, therefore the application was dismissed with costs.
23 Jun 2020

DWI DAYA UTAMA SDN BHD 1. PENTADBIR TANAH DAN JAJAHAN MACHANG 2. MAJLIS MESYUARAT KERAJAAN NEGERI KELANTAN 3. KERAJAAN NEGERI KELANTAN

Citation

DA-25-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-25-5-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the notice of application failed to specify the particular alleged factual dispute and referenced the wrong enclosures so the affidavit could not cure the defect; additionally the applicant failed to produce any cogent external material to prima facie show the respondents' affidavits were inaccurate; accordingly the exceptional threshold for ordering cross-examination under Order 53 r 6 was not met.
3 Dec 2019

Impresive Circuit Sdn Bhd Setia Haruman Sdn Bhd & 11 Lagi

Citation

WA-24NCC-290-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-290-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court granted leave to cross-examine deponents on material disputed facts concerning the existence and breach of the alleged Understanding and New Board Understanding and on alleged conspiracy because those disputes are relevant and cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone; refused leave to cross-examine on the dividend non-declaration issue (can be decided on documents/affidavits) and refused leave against the 1st Defendant as it is nominal; refused to order the SH OS to be heard together with the two writ actions but ordered the two writ actions to be heard together due to administrat…