Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Adverse inference for non-production of documents

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2025

1. ) MAZLAN BIN CHIK 2. ) MOHD AZRANI BIN ABD RAHIM 3. ) FARID KHAN BIN KHAN MOHAMAD 4. ) NASAR KHAN BIN SEPOR RAHMAN 5. ) MOHAMED ZARSHAD BIN SEPOR RAHMAN 6. ) MOHD TAMAM BIN IDRIS 7. ) NOR ZAIDI BIN ABU SHARI 8. ) ROHANA BINTI AHMAD 9. )

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-96-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-96-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the trial judge’s findings were supportable on the pleadings and evidence: the pleaded and testimonial evidence indicated compensation obligations rested with D2 not D1; Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof by producing original minutes or calling the Minister (justifying adverse inferences and rendering key assertions hearsay); there was no demonstrable appellate error meeting the plainly wrong test; accordingly the Sessions Court decision stood and appeal is dismissed with costs.
27 Mar 2024

[TIMBALAN ] SHAMSUL BAHRI BIN MUSA

Citation

WA-42H-17-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42H-17-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SCJ 2 erred by failing to undertake a maximum evaluation of the whole evidence and by treating the case as if entrustment and mens rea were established; the charges lacked requisite particulars (mode/actus reus and mens rea) and prosecution did not prove entrustment or dominion by the accused; conviction was therefore unsafe and must be set aside, resulting in acquittal and discharge.
23 Nov 2023

NESA GROWTH RESOURCES 1. ) SOLARIMPEX TRADE SDN BHD 2. ) VIJAYARAKAVAN A/L R KRISHNASAMY 3. ) JANATHERAN NAIR A/L BALASUBRAMANIAM 4. ) KUMAR A/L VELLAYAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-134-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-134-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment application was dismissed for inordinate delay, lack of bona fides and prejudice to Defendants that could not be remedied by costs; independently the Plaintiff's substantive claim was dismissed because the Plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue as pleaded (sole proprietorship sued as a company) and, on the merits, failed to prove existence of the alleged investment agreement or documentary proof of sums claimed so the burden was not discharged; there was no basis to lift the corporate veil as no fraud or impropriety was pleaded or proven.
4 Nov 2022

KABILAN A/L ANASALAM 1. ) VEERASINGAM A/L MUTHUSAMY 2. ) METRO OUTSOURCE SERVICES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-584-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-584-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found an oral agreement existed: Plaintiff introduced and procured the Heineken contract; contemporaneous testimony and corroborating witnesses proved the 1st Defendant promised a 50:50 profit share; the RM10,000 paid was part payment, not a loan; Defendants failed to produce profit and loss accounts thereby justifying an adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950; consequently Defendants breached the oral agreement and Plaintiff is entitled to half of proven profits, quantified at RM824,730.32 plus interest and costs.
3 Sept 2021

EASTMONT SDN BHD 1. ) TAY KEONG KOK 2. ) CHONG SHEAU LING 3. ) CHUA CHOON YANG 4. ) MOHAMAD HANAFFI BIN MOHAMED JAAFAR 5. ) MOHD YAZID BIN TUNGGAL 6. ) YEO TIONG WE

Citation

BA-22NCC-82-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-82-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found defendants knew of Mega Planner’s debts, orchestrated and used Dakota to obtain a JID and effect a sham winding up to avoid payment; the corporate veil was pierced under s540 and defendants were held jointly and severally personally liable without limitation for Mega Planner’s debts to Plaintiff, assessed as RM17,012,816.88, with costs awarded.
25 Nov 2020

BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD (811810-U) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ALI (NO. K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-12BM-1-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-12BM-1-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof: it did not produce documentary evidence of disbursement or key loan documents and failed to show compliance with contractual terms, enabling adverse inferences; additionally the cause of action for a fresh claim against the guarantor accrued in 2004 and was time‑barred under s6 Limitation Act 1953, therefore the Appellant's claims could not succeed.
8 Jul 2020

TETUAN SULAIMAN & TAYE 1. WONG POH KUN 2. WONG POH LUM

Citation

WA-22NCC-364-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-364-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court inferred that directors WPK and WPL, as mandatory signatories, knowingly permitted dissipation of RM71,310,616.46 received from sale proceeds and could not account for same; the court drew an adverse inference from their failure to produce explanations or documents and concluded they carried on the company’s business with intent to defraud creditors; accordingly both defendants were declared jointly and severally personally liable and ordered to contribute to the company’s assets via the liquidator.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) MAZLAN BIN CHIK 2. ) MOHD AZRANI BIN ABD RAHIM 3. ) FARID KHAN BIN KHAN MOHAMAD 4. ) NASAR KHAN BIN SEPOR RAHMAN 5. ) MOHAMED ZARSHAD BIN SEPOR RAHMAN 6. ) MOHD TAMAM BIN IDRIS 7. ) NOR ZAIDI BIN ABU SHARI 8. ) ROHANA BINTI AHMAD 9. )

[TIMBALAN ] SHAMSUL BAHRI BIN MUSA

NESA GROWTH RESOURCES 1. ) SOLARIMPEX TRADE SDN BHD 2. ) VIJAYARAKAVAN A/L R KRISHNASAMY 3. ) JANATHERAN NAIR A/L BALASUBRAMANIAM 4. ) KUMAR A/L VELLAYAN

KABILAN A/L ANASALAM 1. ) VEERASINGAM A/L MUTHUSAMY 2. ) METRO OUTSOURCE SERVICES SDN BHD

EASTMONT SDN BHD 1. ) TAY KEONG KOK 2. ) CHONG SHEAU LING 3. ) CHUA CHOON YANG 4. ) MOHAMAD HANAFFI BIN MOHAMED JAAFAR 5. ) MOHD YAZID BIN TUNGGAL 6. ) YEO TIONG WE

BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD (811810-U) ABDUL RAZAK BIN ALI (NO. K/P: XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

TETUAN SULAIMAN & TAYE 1. WONG POH KUN 2. WONG POH LUM