Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Burden of proof (balance of probabilities)

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2025

1. ) ABU TALIB BIN NOZIRAHMAD 2. ) BOO SHIN BINTE ADU ROSHID 1. ) KAST CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD YASSIN SHAFIK BIN SARIF

Citation

BL-A53KJ-385-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-A53KJ-385-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the evidence (neutral investigating officer's findings, corroborating Chemist's Report, sketch plan and photographs, and the pattern of vehicle damage and injuries) established the Defendants' version (lateral intrusion by cyclist) as more probable than the Plaintiffs' rear-end theory; Plaintiffs also failed to prove dependency and quantum due to absence of direct testimony from Plaintiffs and the alleged remittance agent, unreliable/unproved salary voucher and hearsay, therefore claims are dismissed with costs.
31 Dec 2024

BARONG SERVICES 1. ) PENGARAH JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN VETERINAR NEGERI SEMBILAN 2. ) Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan

Citation

NA-A51NCvC-42-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A51NCvC-42-05/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a binding contract existed because there was no consensus ad idem on terms and no evidence SD1 had authority to bind the State; procurement approval requirements were not met; therefore Defendants do not owe the Plaintiff and the claim is dismissed.
19 Nov 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD VICKY HO WAI CHIE

Citation

CA-A52NCvC-40-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

CA-A52NCvC-40-07/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

TNB failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant executed and consented to the application (ID-1) or that supporting documents (ID-2, ID-9) were properly proved; witnesses SP1 and SP2 were unreliable to establish execution/identity under s.67 Evidence Act and statutory admissibility conditions were unmet, therefore the documents could not be admitted to establish a contract and the plaintiff's claim fails.
14 May 2024

Embun Karisma Resources (M) Sdn Bhd Nagaraju a/l Vengadesalu

Citation

JA-22NCvC-179-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-179-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the company lent money to defendant: key witness (SP2) admitted the loan was a personal transaction between him and defendant; electronic WhatsApp evidence (IDD15) was unauthenticated under s90A and suspected of tampering; P1 was not shown to be acknowledged or signed by defendant; therefore plaintiff lacked locus standi and claim is dismissed.
10 Nov 2022

ANG WEI JUN KEY POWER SDN BHD

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-585-08/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff to be the registered owner but that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made representations amounting to a warranty that the vehicle was fit for purpose at the time of sale, the one-month warranty had expired before the engine failure, plaintiff did not notify defendant or allow inspection, plaintiff failed to adduce expert evidence proving engine defect and causation attributable to the defendant, and the claimed quantum was not proved; the alleged fraud in obtaining the earlier order was not established. Accordingly the…
7 Sept 2022

CHEAH HOCK CHUAN NG FOOK TEN (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya Pretige G

Citation

JA-12B-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-3-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's findings that the vehicle transfers were contra payments supported by a duly executed Letter of Indemnity, the appellant's admissions (including WhatsApp/audio) and the absence of adequate contrary evidence meant the appellant failed to prove a sale or that the indemnity was void; appellate intervention was unwarranted as the trial court was not plainly wrong and the parol evidence rule barred contradicting the written indemnity.
16 Feb 2022

SIA PECK HONG SEBAGAI BALU YANG SAH DAN PENANGGUNGAN KEPADA ONG TIAN LIM SIMATI UNTUK DIRI SENDIRI XXXX

Citation

JA-12B-95-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12B-95-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants' car caused the accident because eyewitness accounts were inconsistent or unreliable, the key photograph was not produced contemporaneously to police, the vehicle owner provided admissible evidence that the car was not in use and the chemist's report found no forensic link; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment dismissing the claim was affirmed.
6 Dec 2021

HONG & FONG (Didakwa sebagai Firma) 1. TAN PO LIN 2. LEE LAI HENG

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-2-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Contra notes were admissible under section 73A Evidence Act because the maker was deceased; factual admissions and conduct established an implied retainer such that the defendant was acting for the plaintiffs in relation to the Contra Units; the defendant breached its professional duty by failing to investigate and ensure the parcels were free from encumbrance as required by the SPAs and to advise on redemption, and expert evidence was unnecessary given the straightforward conveyancing issues; the defendant failed to discharge its evidential burden and the Sessions Court decision ordering rec…
12 Jan 2021

Mohd Rasul Bin Mohd Zabidin Empayar Indera Sdn Bhd Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Berhad PIHAK KETIGA Projek Penyelengaraan Lebuhraya Berhad (Propel)

Citation

AB - 12B NCVC - 8 - 06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 12B NCVC - 8 - 06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the Sessions Court misdirected itself by undervaluing credible eyewitness evidence and failing to account for incomplete patrols and investigation; on the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs established that an oil spill likely caused the accident and the highway operators breached their duty of care, so liability is apportioned equally 50/50 between the first plaintiff and defendant and the appeal is allowed with costs.
15 Dec 2020

1. BANDARI SIMMA REALTY SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 936685-H) 2. JOTHI A/P MUNIANDY (NO. K/P: 820330-01-5664) RAVICHANTHIRAN A/L GANESAN (yang sebelum ini pernah beramal sebagai Rakan Kongsi Tetuan Ravi, Aida & Partners)

Citation

JA-12BNCVC-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCVC-1-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed: the Sessions Court erred in permitting the plaintiff to recover fees because the plaintiff lacked locus to sue alone for a dissolved partnership, the trial judge wrongly relied on pleadings from a separate struck‑out suit as admissions, failed to address absence of privity and statutory demand required by s124 Legal Profession Act, and plaintiff failed to call the material witness (Tan Bon Kiat) leading to adverse inference; on the evidence plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof on balance of probabilities.