Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forgery allegations

Legal area

Court

27 Dec 2024

1. ) Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd 2. ) Everest Landmark Sdn Bhd 3. ) Teoh Kiang Hong 4. ) Ong Bee Lee Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-25-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-25-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court held appeals should be allowed: there is no entrenched statutory two-stage procedure for in-trial recantation and recantation must be assessed with care; Khoon Chye Hin principles apply to recantation scrutiny; where forgery is alleged the party asserting forgery bears the onus to prove it; an attesting solicitor/party is not automatically an unreliable witness and his evidence must be weighed with other evidence; expert evidence weight is determined by methodology and materials (not payment). The Court set aside Court of Appeal decisions and affirmed the High Court findings tha…
17 Dec 2024

1. ) ANANDH KUMAR A/L GANAPATHI 2. ) DR. SUNDER RAJ A/L GANAPATHI Kaniammah A/p Suppaih [Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Ganapathi A/l Ayavu, No. K/P: 500714-01-5177 / 795259 (Si Mati)]

Citation

JA-22NCvC-115-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-115-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application (enclosure 41) was dismissed because the points raised by the defendant turned on disputed facts—notably allegations of fraud and forgery, omissions in the estate inventory and ongoing investigations—which are triable issues requiring full trial evidence (including oral testimony and cross-examination) before limitation defences, probate characterisation or res judicata can be finally determined.
14 Sept 2023

AXBUILDER SDN BHD BONAFIDE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-114-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-114-02/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the identified documents to exist and to be in the plaintiff's possession or control, they are relevant and necessary for fair disposal and forensic examination given defendant's allegation of forgery, and prior adjudication (Guaman 1715) estops relitigation of the production issue; accordingly the defendant's production application is allowed and costs are in the cause.
17 Feb 2023

PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN. BHD. LIVE CAPITAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

W-02(NCC)(W)-2141-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCC
Case number

W-02(NCC)(W)-2141-11/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Because the Appellant produced the original payment vouchers which DW2 admitted signing and produced contemporaneous documentary evidence (cheques, ledger), the evidential burden shifted to the Respondent to prove forgery/tampering; the Respondent failed to adduce credible evidence or contemporaneous accounts to rebut the vouchers; consequently the court concluded the payments were advances and entered judgment for RM7,000,000 with 5% p.a. interest from date of writ, set aside the High Court decision and awarded costs to the Appellant.
15 Aug 2022

Macsteel International Far East Limited Lysaght Galvanized Steel Berhad

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the learned Judicial Commissioner did not misapply his discretion in refusing the s.10 stay and granting anti-arbitration injunctions because there was a serious factual dispute (allegations of forgery) that required a fuller investigation which, on balance and for reasons of justice and convenience (including subpoena power), should be carried out by the Malaysian High Court; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the High Court's directions and injunctions were upheld.
14 Dec 2021

Tan Kah Ho, Loh Li Lian [GAN TEIK CHEE & HO (PENANG)] Ian Ghee Eik Kai [IAN GHEE & ASSOCIATES (GOMBAK)]

Citation

PA-22NCvC-35-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-35-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Order 14A application was dismissed because there were serious disputes of material fact (denials of signatures, allegations of suppression of the will, forgery and fraud) that were interwoven with the legal issues, so the plaintiff failed to meet the O.14A test that all necessary and material facts be proved or admitted and the questions were not suitable for determination without a full trial; additionally the court noted the probate requirement if a will exists.
20 Oct 2021

1. LYSAGHT CORRUGATED PIPE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 197201001314 (12941-P)) 2. LYSAGHT GALVANIZED STEEL BERHAD (No. Syarikat: 197901002195 (46426-P)) 1. POPEYE RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 1274750-T) 2. MACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL FAR EAST LIM

Citation

WA-22NCC-109-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-109-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court applied the full merits test: before granting a s.10 stay the court must be satisfied that a concluded arbitration agreement exists; on the available evidence (including forgery allegations and lack of original signed contracts) there was insufficient evidence of a valid arbitration agreement, therefore the s.10 stay (Enclosure 44) was dismissed and the Plaintiffs' anti-arbitration injunction applications (Enclosures 15 and 28) were allowed; the matter was directed to trial to determine the disputed issues of forgery and contract existence.
20 Oct 2021

1. ) Lysaght Corrugated Pipe Sdn Bhd 2. ) Lysaght Galvanized Steel Berhad 1. ) Popeye Resources Sdn Bhd 2. ) Macsteel International Far East Limited

Citation

WA-22NCC-109-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-109-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the available evidence the Court found insufficient proof of a concluded and valid arbitration agreement in the impugned contracts alleged to be forged; applying the full‑merits evaluation (not the prima facie test) the Court dismissed the 2nd Defendant's s10 stay application (Enclosure 44) and granted the Plaintiffs' anti‑arbitration injunctions (Enclosures 15 and 28), directing the matter to trial to determine existence/validity of the contracts and arbitration clause.
11 May 2021

AMBANK (M) BERHAD MANGKUBUMI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-187-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was granted because the Plaintiff established a clear documentary right to a liquidated sum under an absolute assignment with proper notice; the Defendant failed to give written notice of discrepancy within the contractual period, made part payments accepting the arrangement, and did not raise specific pleaded facts or evidence sufficient to create triable issues; allegations of forgery and other irregularities were unsupported and insufficient to defeat the Order 14 application.
20 Jan 2020

1. DESAMINIUM JAYA SDN BHD 2. TAY MARY 1. TAN AI LIN 2. TAN RUY MUN 3. TAN SHA LIN 4. NG PAK MUI

Citation

WA-22NCVC-662-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-662-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found Plaintiffs established sufficient prima facie grounds and serious issues for trial (handwriting expert opinion and the suspicious deposit of a photocopied will plus attempted asset transfers), that damages would be inadequate and the balance of convenience favoured preservation; the court held it has power under the Rules and inherent jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver and Manager and accepted Plaintiffs' undertaking for damages, thereby granting both the interlocutory injunction and appointment of Mr Lim Tian Huat as Receiver and Manager.