Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affidavit evidence

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2025

A.T. TAXATION SDN BHD PERUNDING JURU JASA SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72NCC-1256-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCC-1256-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff met the Order 14 prerequisites (service, appearance, compliant supporting affidavit with invoices) and defendant failed to file any affidavit in reply or evidential material to show a triable issue; therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff for the claimed debt with costs.
2 Dec 2024

R O S M O S

Citation

WA-24F-200-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-200-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to cross-examine was dismissed because it was filed with unjustified delay and the Plaintiff had adduced sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence on key issues such that cross-examination was unnecessary; the Defendant failed to show that cross-examination was required to resolve material disputes and failed to discharge the burden of proof for his allegations, therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave.
28 Oct 2024

AHMAD RADZI BIN ROSLAN

Citation

AA-42JSKS-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-42JSKS-1-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court upheld the conviction because the child victim's testimony, when assessed holistically, was credible and consistent on material points and supported by medical evidence of bruising consistent with blunt penetration; re-examination was a permissible clarification not new evidence; the late affidavit (Exhibit D15) and SD2 were unreliable/afterthought or interested and insufficient to raise reasonable doubt; and the sentence fell within judicial discretion, therefore both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed though conditional suspension under s.311 was permitted as previous…
2 May 2024

JM AUTO GALLERY SDN. BHD. NUR JAMILAH BINTI ISMAIL

Citation

PC-A73-2-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PC-A73-2-09/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff proved a prima facie case with contemporaneous documentary evidence and WhatsApp communications showing the defendant handled and misappropriated the RM70,000 deposit; the defendant's replies were bare denials and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, thus no triable issue existed and summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.
1 Apr 2024

LIM MIOW KHENG TEE SWEE BENG PIHAK TERKILAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

BJ-78-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-78-1-12/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff is entitled to spousal maintenance under s.3; defendant's preliminary objection was dismissed; transfer of property does not extinguish maintenance duty; defendant failed to make full and frank financial disclosure and evidence (business registration and bank statements) supports that he has means; accordingly monthly maintenance fixed at RM5600 from December 2023 and arrears for May–November 2023 calculated at RM5600 per month to be paid within one month of judgment; costs to be borne by parties respectively.
14 Mar 2024

Tang Wei Lam Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn Bhd

Citation

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied the preliminary and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment by producing undisputed accounting records and acknowledgements; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on the facts or law (bankruptcy status and alleged informal agreement/ delay did not displace the obligation to repay). Consequently summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and the application for security for costs was dismissed.
6 Mar 2024

SPM CONCRETE EQUIPMENT (M) SDN BHD PBH ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-7591-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-7591-10/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff proved a prima facie case supported by delivery orders, purchase orders and invoices for the claimed period; defendant failed to produce credible, contemporaneous documentation or precise evidence to establish triable issues and relied on afterthought denials; therefore summary judgment was proper and entered for the plaintiff, with costs awarded.
30 Jan 2024

NORMI BINTI ABU BAKAR RASHIDI BIN ANI

Citation

KA-A72NCvC-135-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A72NCvC-135-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff complied with Order 14 requirements and established a prima facie case; defendant failed to file a defence and did not demonstrate bona fide triable issues in the affidavit answer (mere denials and unmeritorious assertions), therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and costs awarded.
29 Jan 2024

Bank Pertanian Malaysia Berhad 1. ) LF Marketing Sdn Bhd 2. ) Guan Lip Fatt @ Chin Lip Fatt 3. ) Cheong Tho Moi

Citation

NA-22M-124-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-22M-124-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the defendants failed to comply with court directions to file affidavit replies and written submissions, failed to attend the hearing (filing a last-minute adjournment letter which the court found not credible) and therefore admitted the plaintiff's affidavit evidence, the court allowed the plaintiff's applications: entered judgment for the plaintiff and struck out the defendants' counterclaim, awarding costs of RM1,500 for each application (total RM3,000).
23 Mar 2023

TETUAN ZURINA, HAFIZAH & CO. (Menyaman sebagai sebuah firma) 1. ) MOHD SOLEHHUDIN BIN ABDUL 2. ) NUR MOHD AMRUL SHAFWAN BIN BHARUM

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-182-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-182-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the appointment and the expenditures were established by affidavit and exhibits (including a cancellation letter sent by the defendants), the defendants' denials were shadowy and unmeritorious and did not disclose triable issues; accordingly the Order 14 application succeeded in part and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the properly proved advances and solicitor's fees totaling RM21,814 plus costs RM500; exemplary damages were not proven and rejected.