Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert evidence (s45 evidence act)

Legal area

Court

30 May 2024

JAY SHREE L. C. DOSHI (secara sendiri dan sebagai Wasi dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) 1. ) AHMAD FAIZAL BIN MOHAMAD ALI 2. ) NORMALA BINTI HAJI BASIRON 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-126-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-126-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found 1st Defendant breached duty to obtain proper informed consent (failed to disclose TBMM concerns and material burn risk), failed to adopt appropriate intra‑operative precautions and adequate aftercare, and was therefore negligent; RFA as a method was acceptable but the manner and safeguards implemented by 1st Defendant fell below required standard; 2nd Defendant not negligent; 3rd Defendant vicariously liable for 1st Defendant; damages and costs awarded to Plaintiff and estate accordingly.
27 May 2022

TROPICANA GOLF & COUNTRY RESORT BERHAD 1. ) Loke Wai Kuen 2. ) Lee Wei Lid

Citation

BA-12BC-1-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-1-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s factual findings that the 1st-3rd Defendants’ renovation works caused the seepage and were liable in negligence and private nuisance, but intervened on quantum: reduced general damages for emotional distress from RM200,000 to RM10,000 due to lack of medical evidence and failure to mitigate, thereby reducing total payable by 1st-3rd Defendants to RM115,682.92; allowed 4th Defendant's appeal holding the developer was not liable under the DMC or in negligence (no implied term, proviso limiting liability, lack of proximity and remoteness), and adjusted costs…
12 Nov 2021

Mohd Sidik Bin Muhamad Ketar 1. ) Zainal Hazril Bin Zainal Mokthar 2. ) Zainal Mokthar Bin Zainal Abidin

Citation

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

High Court
Case number

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

On appeal the court found plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities a permanent total right brachial plexus injury caused by the accident and that the specialised motorised MyoPro2 orthosis was necessary and useful; SP3's expert evidence was admissible under s45 Evidence Act and, given his specific expertise and corroborating medical evidence, outweighed SD1's contrary opinion; thus the claim for the orthosis (RM3,977,160) and costs (RM7,000) were allowed and the defendants' cross-appeal dismissed.
29 Jan 2021

EONTAT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 620797-M) BUDGET KITCHEN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 736501-A)

Citation

BA-12BC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

ID20 was hearsay and inadmissible; the trial judge correctly accepted qualified expert evidence that the defendant's piling works were inadequate; applying the established two-tests for implied terms the court implied a term that piling works must enable the warehouse to be fit for occupation and use, the defendant breached that implied term, lack of planning permission under the TCPA does not render the contract void under s24 Contracts Act 1950, and there was no basis to disturb the Sessions Court's award; appeal dismissed with costs.

Malaysia Case Law

JAY SHREE L. C. DOSHI (secara sendiri dan sebagai Wasi dan Pemegang Amanah Estet Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan) 1. ) AHMAD FAIZAL BIN MOHAMAD ALI 2. ) NORMALA BINTI HAJI BASIRON 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

TROPICANA GOLF & COUNTRY RESORT BERHAD 1. ) Loke Wai Kuen 2. ) Lee Wei Lid

Mohd Sidik Bin Muhamad Ketar 1. ) Zainal Hazril Bin Zainal Mokthar 2. ) Zainal Mokthar Bin Zainal Abidin

EONTAT SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 620797-M) BUDGET KITCHEN SDN. BHD. (Co. No.: 736501-A)