Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Evidential burden

  • 23 Feb 2026

    Langkawi Yacht Club Bhd 1. ) SUZANNAH HELEN HARVEY 2. ) RONAN FRANCIS HARVEY

    Citation
    W-02(ADM)(W)-443-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    ADM
    Case number
    W-02(ADM)(W)-443-03/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The appeal is allowed because the High Court reversed settled law by effectively shifting the plaintiff's non-shifting legal burden onto the defendant, admitted and relied upon inadmissible lay opinion on technical matters instead of expert evidence, failed to give proper weight to contemporaneous documents and independent evidence showing the LYCB fuel batch was not causative, and overlooked material alternatives and inconsistencies; accordingly the High Court judgment dated 9.2.2022 is set aside, payment(s) made under it to be refunded within 14 days, interest of 5% p.a. ordered on refund,…

  • 13 Feb 2026

    TAN HOCK CHUAN

    Citation
    BA-42K-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-42K-2-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Entrustment was established by the respondent's role and control over company affairs, but the prosecution failed to prove dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the monies because the contra arrangement was a business practice in a family-run company, the respondent acted openly and the property was recorded as a company asset; crucial documents were not proved, and absence of board resolutions was not conclusive proof of dishonesty, therefore no prima facie case existed and the acquittal was rightly upheld.

  • 29 Aug 2025

    JM Letrik Sdn. Bhd. Gas Malaysia Distribution Sdn Bhd

    Citation
    JA-12BNCvC-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-12BNCvC-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    High Court upheld trial judge's findings that defendant breached its duty of care by deviating from the approved HDD profile, failing to ensure a minimum 3m safe distance and to expose the plaintiff's gas pipeline, and by carrying out works without valid work permits and supervision; those breaches caused the pipeline damage and the plaintiff proved losses of RM744,271.24 on the balance of probabilities; appellate court will not disturb trial judge's factual findings absent plain error, therefore appeal dismissed.

  • 17 Jun 2025

    TEMPERLITE INSULATION SDN BHD AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-510-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-510-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Court found the Policy Jacket tendered was generic, bore no policy-specific identifiers, and the Defendant failed to prove delivery or call the agent; therefore the Plaintiff never had notice of Special Exclusion 1(c), the Policy Schedule constituted the complete contract as to the Plaintiff, the exclusion did not apply, and the Plaintiff proved entitlement to RM1,775,845.50 on the balance of probabilities.

  • 21 Apr 2025

    MUHAMMAD AZWAN BIN ZULKARNAI [ ]

    Citation
    D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    D-05(SH)-1-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge correctly rejected the insanity defence: psychiatric report showed substance‑induced psychosis had resolved and affirmed mental capacity at the material time; the appellant's deliberate actions (entry, seizure of firearm, loading and aiming, two shots causing fatal injuries, flight and concealment) and forensic evidence demonstrated cognitive capacity and intent. The appellant failed to satisfy the burden under s105 EA on a balance of probabilities and no adverse inference under s114(g) EA arose.

  • 28 Feb 2025

    NORLIDA BINTI BAHARUDIN NOR AINI BINTI MAHMOOD ZOHDY

    Citation
    WA-12BNCC-20-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-12BNCC-20-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The appeal was allowed because the appellant adduced sufficient contemporaneous evidence (respondent's pleaded admission, whiteboard note, draft settlement agreement drafted on respondent's instructions, video admissions, and partial repayment) to shift the evidential burden to the respondent, who failed to discharge it; the Session Court erred by dismissing the claim for lack of direct proof of payments and by failing properly to assess the evidence.

  • 12 Sept 2024

    Liau Vui Pin [ ]

    Citation
    B-05(SH)-418-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    SH
    Case number
    B-05(SH)-418-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The Court held that the concealed nature and duration of possession, the appellant's conduct, failure to investigate or substantiate the existence of Anson and the chemical analysis together supported the inference of knowledge (wilful blindness) and thus mens rea for trafficking was established beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

  • 27 May 2024

    Hendra Bin Mulana

    Citation
    A-09-279-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    A-09-279-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    The court held that the prosecution proved a prima facie case, s.20 of the 2017 Act is a statutory rebuttable presumption which, once engaged, placed the burden on the appellant to show on the balance of probabilities that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the victim's age; the appellant failed to rebut the presumption because the photos, videos and communications demonstrated the victim was a child and his explanations were implausible, therefore conviction and the reduced sentences (10 years imprisonment per count, concurrent, and whipping plus ancillary orders) were affirmed.

  • 15 Mar 2022

    Techway Engineering Sdn Bhd Oilfab Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation)

    Citation
    WA-24NCvC-1843-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-24NCvC-1843-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff performed the consultancy obligations under the engagement letter to fulfil the conditions precedent of the sale agreement; the invoices and certificates, together with approvals and completion certificates, evidenced performance and the defendant failed to prove the MPK penalty resulted from plaintiff's breach; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the agreed consultancy fee and costs.