Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hearsay and exceptions

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2024

ABDUL JALIL BIN ABDUL MUTHALIB Alphons Edward George Varkevisser

Citation

KA-11B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-11B-4-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Magistrate’s factual finding that only RM3,000 was proved is supported by objective documentary evidence (official hospital receipt) and the hospital officer’s testimony admissible under the official records exception; absent corroborative documentary proof or testimony from the intermediary (Richard), the remainder of the RM28,000 claim was not proved and there was no misdirection or breach of pleadings warranting interference.
15 Oct 2024

MADIAHLAGAN A/L SUNDARAM LOTUSS STORES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

AA-16A-9-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-16A-9-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant admitted sending the WhatsApp messages and the content objectively constituted sexual harassment; documentary evidence and s.32 Evidence Act exceptions made admission of investigation notes permissible; on the civil balance of probabilities the Industrial Court properly found misconduct and that such misconduct justified dismissal; absence of the complainant's live testimony did not render trial unfair and did not require appellate intervention.
21 Jul 2021

KANAGESH KUMAR A/L MAHENDRAN SADIAH BINTI MUHAMMAD TAIB

Citation

JA-12B-103-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-103-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The trial judge erred in excluding bystander statements and photographs as inadmissible hearsay because the statements formed part of the res gestae and the photographs were admissible circumstantial evidence; the Affidavit of Non-Service was admissible under s.32(1)(b) and s.73A and the court could have exercised its discretion to admit it, so there was no justification for drawing an adverse inference for non-production of the Investigating Officer; on the totality of admissible evidence the Plaintiff discharged the burden on a balance of probabilities and liability was established; the Ses…
18 Jul 2021

PENDAKWARAYA Ong Boon Seong

Citation

JG-83-19-02/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JG-83-19-02/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not prove that the accused had exclusive custody or control of the seized prohibited cigarettes nor that he had knowledge of them; material witnesses and evidence that could explain custody and ownership were not called; statutory presumptions could not be invoked absent proof of possession; therefore accused discharged without being called to enter defence.

Malaysia Case Law

ABDUL JALIL BIN ABDUL MUTHALIB Alphons Edward George Varkevisser

MADIAHLAGAN A/L SUNDARAM LOTUSS STORES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

KANAGESH KUMAR A/L MAHENDRAN SADIAH BINTI MUHAMMAD TAIB

PENDAKWARAYA Ong Boon Seong