Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of documentary evidence

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2026

THABRINO A/L ALEXIUS

Citation

JA-45A-118-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-45A-118-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court convicted because the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody and a credible chemist report establishing 19.3g of heroin (exceeding the 15g threshold) thereby invoking the statutory presumption of trafficking; direct evidence and documentary records established ownership, control and proximity of the package to the accused such that possession and knowledge were proved and the defence failed to rebut the presumption or raise reasonable doubt (defence evidence was held to be afterthoughts and a key defence witness was impeached and discredited).
9 Jan 2026

BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD. 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1365-08/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was not plainly wrong: a constructive trust arose by operation of equity to protect plaintiffs who had paid substantial sums, taken possession and had subsisting SPAs; non-payment of the entire balance did not bar equitable relief; laches and limitation were not established against the plaintiffs; appellants' reliance on Official Receiver/bank consent did not defeat plaintiffs' equitable rights, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.
27 Oct 2025

Jayandran A/l Subramaniam (Sebagai Wasi Bagi Harta-pesaka Ramaney A/l Ramu (No. Kp: 460514-10-5107), Simati) 1. ) RAJAPRAKASH A/L RAGHAVAN 2. ) POOVARAJA A/L RAGHAVAN 3. ) VINOTHINI A/P RAGHAVAN

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-134-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-134-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The High Court erred by failing to give proper weight to contemporaneous documentary evidence (POAs, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Trust Deeds, Statutory Declarations) which established that Ramaney held a one-half beneficial share and that the Defendants' interest was limited to 1,114 sqm; the Court also placed undue weight on unreliable hearsay oral testimony and misallocated the burden of proof. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the alternative relief ordering sale of the Defendants' 1,114 sqm interest to the Plaintiff at market value is granted, with consequential powers to effect tran…
1 Oct 2025

ARIL KURNIA ENTERPRISE LION MINING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52NCvC-314-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff established indebtedness on the basis of the finalized invoices amounting to RM643,860.08; the handwritten credit note was not proven as a finalized document and cannot operate as a set-off; plaintiff is entitled to contractual late payment interest at 8% per annum from date of default to judgment and 5% per annum post-judgment; costs awarded on the standard scale.
21 Aug 2025

YANKONG STAINLESS SDN BHD 1. ) LATEX FORM SDN BHD 2. ) SARAVANA KUMAR A/L NARAYANAN 3. ) KONG MUK WENG

Citation

BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-A72NCvC-325-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiff proved the credit contract, delivery and acceptance of goods and that the 1.5% monthly late payment interest formed part of the agreed terms; Defendants failed to prove a binding waiver or full-and-final settlement; the personal guarantee was validly executed and not procured by legal duress; late stamping was remedied and did not invalidate the guarantee; the charged interest was simple not compound. Therefore Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimed late payment interest and costs.
5 Jun 2025

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

Citation

02(f)-65-11/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-65-11/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

A disputed document marked as exhibit does not automatically render its contents proven; the party relying on the document must first establish a prima facie case by properly proving authenticity (usually by calling the maker or satisfying section 73A conditions) before any evidential burden can shift; absent such proof the contents remain hearsay and the lower court was correct to dismiss the respondent's claim. The Court of Appeal was wrong to treat marked exhibits as determinative without proof of authenticity.
16 May 2025

SANJAY KUMAR A/L SELVAKUMARU

Citation

WA-83-8794-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-83-8794-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

For an offence under Section 45B RTA the magistrate concluded the BBUT Rules Schedule 1 procedural requirements for Section 45C do not apply; the prosecution had proved the essential elements (accused as driver in control and a breath reading of 315 mg/100 ml) such that a prima facie case existed and the prior discharge should be revisited and the accused called to enter defence.
29 Apr 2025

Edwin a/l Sither 1. ) Karunakaran a/l Chatu 2. ) Azizul Annuar bin Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Haji Adenan Satem 3. ) Menteri Belia dan Sukan 4. ) Pesuruhjaya Sukan Malaysia 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NCvC-61-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-21NCvC-61-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to discharge the legal burden to prove defamation or conspiracy; plaintiff lacked standing as an unincorporated society to bring a defamation claim; communications at issue were statements of fact about non-registration under the Sports Development Act and were not defamatory on their plain, objective meaning; claims against ministerial defendants for breach of statutory duty were misconceived and should have been pursued by judicial review; impugned documents were not properly admitted as exhibits. Accordingly the writ claim was dismissed and counterclaim dismissed.
6 Mar 2025

YOUGANESPARAN A/L MUNIANDY [ ]

Citation

W-09-41-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

W-09-41-02/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant received RM20,000 as marked notes witnessed and recorded; consequently the statutory presumption under s50(1) MACC Act arose and the appellant failed to rebut it on the balance of probabilities, identity was established and ID21 was admissible under the Commission's documentary admissibility provisions; conviction stands though sentence reduced in mitigation.
3 Jan 2025

RAINBOW WELLPACK SDN BHD YONG SU LING

Citation

BL-22NCvC-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BL-22NCvC-46-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused both applications: Lampiran 39 (use of the supporting affidavit) was rejected because the affidavit lacked the required translation jurat and was therefore defective under Order 41, meaning the court could not be satisfied the deponent understood the affidavit; Lampiran 33 (admission of additional document bundles) was rejected for non-compliance with case management directions and for being filed at the last minute without reasonable explanation, causing potential prejudice and undermining case management. Costs of RM3,000 were ordered for each application.