Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Best evidence rule

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

HOTEL 77 SDN BHD 1. ) PADUAN EKSKLUSIF SDN BHD 2. ) RAR ALAM BINA SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12B-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-8-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case because the critical report ID7 was not admitted as evidence (appellant did not call its maker or show reasonable efforts under s73A), adverse inference under s114(g) favored respondents, therefore trial judge's finding of no proven negligence was not plainly wrong and the appeal must be dismissed.
4 Mar 2024

MOHD SABRI BIN MD SUHAIMI

Citation

DA-82D-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-82D-6-03/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt: the chain of custody of the urine sample was established by witness identification and photographs despite absence of the physical bottle, the forensic analysis by a qualified government scientific officer confirmed Amphetamine and Methamphetamine and complied with section 31A, permitting application of the statutory presumption under section 37(k) that the accused had administered the drugs to himself; the accused's denials were bare, afterthoughts and uncorroborated, therefore insufficient to rebut the presumption; acco…
16 Mar 2023

Public Bank Bhd 1. ) Fung Shaw Yiew @ Jellfer 2. ) Fung Siew Fa @ Emily 3. ) Registrar of Titles, Land & Surveys Department

Citation

S-01(NCvC)(W)-379-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

S-01(NCvC)(W)-379-08/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, set aside the High Court order, held that the plaintiffs failed to prove forgery of their signatures and had not discharged the burden on balance; the transfer was valid (consistent with a secret trust for the mother) and the 3rd Defendant Bank was a bona fide subsequent chargee entitled to deferred indefeasibility; plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and costs awarded to the appellants (RM70,000 and RM30,000 respectively).
24 Feb 2023

BAVANI A/P MUNIAND @ SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) HYM ALLIANCE SDN BHD 2. ) HANITHA DEVI A/P M KUMAR 3. ) MOHAMAD ADIB FIRDAUS BIN ZULKEFLE

Citation

WA-A72-66-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72-66-05/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found Defendants 2 and 3 made false representations inducing Plaintiff to withdraw and invest funds; Defendant 1 was vicariously liable because the wrongful acts were closely connected to authorised duties and Defendant 1 failed to discharge its onus to prove independent contractor status or produce original employment contract (adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950). Plaintiff entitled to damages and costs: RM60,900 plus 5% p.a. interest from judgment and costs RM3,950 and action costs RM1,000.
19 Aug 2020

1. ) HO SIEW KAH 2. ) TAN JIT NENG TAN KAR CHUN

Citation

WA-12BNCVC-139-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCVC-139-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appellants failed to strictly prove the claimed special damages because the vehicle owner did not testify despite receipts in her name, the workshop receipts were vague cash sale entries lacking itemisation or company records, the coordinator lacked documentary authority and objective tests (alignment) were not produced; therefore the claimed sums could not be accepted and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jun 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Public Prosecutor N

Citation

AB-41LB-7-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-41LB-7-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Acquittal was correct and is affirmed because the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of rape beyond reasonable doubt (notably credible proof of penetration and positive identification), key medical witnesses were not called to verify the medical report, forensic evidence was lacking, and the magistrate’s assessment that the child witnesses’ evidence was inconsistent and insufficient is entitled to deference on appeal.
8 Jan 2020

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan Pendakwaraya Edmund Chin Chong Yan

Citation

BL-83-1492-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BL-83-1492-07/2018 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although prosecution proved payment and false representation, reasonable doubt remained as to accused's knowledge and dishonest intention because prosecution failed to call the material witness Muhamad Aslan to disprove the defence that an agent (PW4) obtained the fake permit; that doubt required acquittal.

Malaysia Case Law

HOTEL 77 SDN BHD 1. ) PADUAN EKSKLUSIF SDN BHD 2. ) RAR ALAM BINA SDN BHD

MOHD SABRI BIN MD SUHAIMI

Public Bank Bhd 1. ) Fung Shaw Yiew @ Jellfer 2. ) Fung Siew Fa @ Emily 3. ) Registrar of Titles, Land & Surveys Department

BAVANI A/P MUNIAND @ SUBRAMANIAM 1. ) HYM ALLIANCE SDN BHD 2. ) HANITHA DEVI A/P M KUMAR 3. ) MOHAMAD ADIB FIRDAUS BIN ZULKEFLE

1. ) HO SIEW KAH 2. ) TAN JIT NENG TAN KAR CHUN

PENDAKWARAYA Public Prosecutor N

PENDAKWARAYA Timbalan Pendakwaraya Edmund Chin Chong Yan