Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial admission

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2025

KAMARIAH BINTI ALI 1. ) MASLIZA BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD SAHABUDDIN BIN MOHAMED 3. ) TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (M) BERHAD

Citation

DA-12B-27-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-27-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant first was 100% negligent for exiting a minor road into a major road without ensuring it was safe; his sworn trial admission and amended pleading that he rode uninsured PBT 1314 were accepted as credible, plaintiff failed to prove MAH 5021 was involved, therefore owner and insurer (defendant2 and defendant3) are not liable.
12 Aug 2024

Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn. Bhd. TAN SEW CHENG

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-369-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-369-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The dissent concluded that because the defendant elected to submit no case to answer the court was bound to assume the plaintiff's evidence true; the defendant had judicially admitted the existence and contents of undertakings; documentary evidence was undisputed; the trial judge erred by testing plaintiff's case against unled defences and reliance on unsatisfactory cross-examination answers; on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved a prima facie case and the High Court decision dismissing the claim must be set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiff with costs.
28 Feb 2024

Asia Media Group Berhad 1. ) Wong Shee Kai 2. ) ASIA MEDIA SDN BHD(IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-22NCC-646-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-646-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

AMSB was properly added as a defendant because the defendant's pleading constituted a judicial admission that the disputed EPM belonged to subsidiaries including AMSB and therefore AMSB's legal and pecuniary interests would be directly affected by any order on the EPM claim; under O.15 r.6(2)(b) the court has discretion to join such a necessary party to ensure complete and effective adjudication and to protect creditors' and contributories' interests in liquidation.
7 Dec 2023

Suthan a/l Panchadcharam Isha Educare Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-B52NCC-99-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B52NCC-99-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court granted summary judgment because the auditor's confirmation of balance, unqualified financial statements filed by the Defendant, the Defendant's pleadings and failure to rebut or reply to demand constituted clear admissions and contemporaneous documentary proof of the debt of RM838,672.54; no bona fide triable issue was shown and the burden to disprove shifted to the Defendant who failed to do so.
7 Dec 2023

Suthan a/l Panchadcharam Isha Educare Sdn Bhd

Citation

BA-B52NCC-99-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B52NCC-99-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Summary judgment was entered because contemporaneous documentary evidence (auditor's confirmation, unqualified financial statements filed at SSM, statutory declarations by director, and letter of demand) together with judicial admissions in the defence established the debt of RM838,672.54 and showed no bona fide triable defence; the defendant's third‑party indemnity plea did not negate liability and the discovery application was nugatory.
19 Jun 2023

SYARIKAT ABDUL GHAFFAR TRADING SDN BHD AL-HIRAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD

Citation

BL-12ANCC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-12ANCC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant’s own pleaded defence constituted a judicial admission of delivery and part payment, the alleged consignment term was not evidenced in contemporaneous documents and appeared to be an afterthought, and nothing in the affidavits raised a bona fide triable issue; therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the unpaid balance and the appeal was dismissed.
1 Apr 2022

YCN CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD CYPARK SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22C-16-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-16-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Sub-paragraph 14.9 of the RDCC, read in context with the other paragraphs and denials in RDCC, did not constitute a clear judicial admission that the defendant owed RM1,323,605.86; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to prove a clear admission and the court declined to exercise its discretion to enter judgment under O 27 r 3(1).
2 Nov 2020

TAN KAH HOO LOH LI LIAN ANG KHOON CHEONG

Citation

PA-22NCVC-212-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-212-11/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The judicial admissions made by the 1st defendant at the first trial were clear and demonstrably contradicted the grounds in his Form 19B and his affidavits were defective for non-compliance with Order 41 r3; the Court of Appeal remittal did not preclude summary disposal under Order 27 r3; on the three-stage test the 1st defendant failed to show any caveatable interest and thus all nine caveats must be removed, damages to be assessed and costs awarded.