Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Burden of proof on balance of probabilities

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

CHUAH SOO PENG ONG CHIN WEI

Citation

AB-12B-1-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12B-1-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the appellant proved that the respondent gave assurances, a guarantee/indemnity and promised repayment mechanisms (including clause 4A.1 in MOA 4.2.2020) which induced the RM296,000 loan; given the parties' acquaintance, the statutory declaration, production of the phone, the meeting evidence and corroborating witness testimony, the WhatsApp voice message and MOA evidence were sufficiently authentic to found liability, entitling appellant to principal, interest and costs.
24 Jun 2025

GOMATHY A/P VIJAYAN 1. ) ELANKOVAN A/L RUKMINIE @ RAMANATHI 2. ) SELVANAYAGI A/P CHILLAYAH

Citation

PA-22NCvC-117-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-117-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On comparison of documentary evidence (SPA 2016, SPA 2015, passports) and witness testimony, the court found no material differences indicating forgery, the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof for forgery, RM200,000 was paid and received as a deposit under SPA 2016, the Plaintiff had a registrable equitable interest justifying the caveat, specific performance was not feasible due to existing prior encumbrance, therefore the Plaintiff's alternative claim for a refund was allowed and the Defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
19 Feb 2025

MUHAMAD AIZAT BIN ONN GEE HING ELECTRICAL WORKS SDN BHD

Citation

BJ-A72NCvC-41-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-A72NCvC-41-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to discharge onus on balance of probabilities. Key electronic documents (WhatsApp, images, transcriptions) were inadmissible for lack of s90A foundation; contemporaneous documents and defendant witnesses were credible and established Defendant paid RM21,400 and supplied materials on credit amounting to RM22,055.40, producing a small net overpayment. Accordingly plaintiff's claim dismissed; defendant's counterclaim allowed in part for RM104.60.
28 Jun 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD KOPERASI FELDA BUKIT CHERAKAH SELANGOR BERHAD

Citation

BJ-A72NCvC-35-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BJ-A72NCvC-35-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was the registered consumer because there was no admissible evidence of a statutory application or proper contract linking the defendant to the account; that failure is fatal to the claim, so the claim is dismissed and there is no need to decide tampering or quantum.
21 Jun 2024

1. ) OOI TSE BING 2. ) LD PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD KHOR BOON HONG

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-57-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-57-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On holistic review the Respondent failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the alleged tranches, particularly the fourth and fifth, were loans to the Appellants; crucial documentary evidence showing withdrawal/transfer to the Appellants or a request by the Appellants to pay into corporate accounts was absent, therefore the Sessions Court's finding was unsustainable and its decision was set aside.
15 Dec 2023

HOME TOWN STEAMBOAT HOLDING SDN. BHD. 1. ) PLATINUM PROSPERITY SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEE THAI CHUNG 3. ) WONG CHUN FAI

Citation

BB-A52-11-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52-11-04/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the 2016 and 2017 written agreements to be valid non-exclusive licence agreements (not franchise agreements), the defendants failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation or that the agreements were void ab initio under the Franchise Act or Contract Act, and the plaintiff proved the outstanding contractual sums; accordingly plaintiff's claim was allowed and the defendant's counterclaim (including restitution of RM150,000) was dismissed.
8 Dec 2023

MUHAMMAD SAIFUL ISKANDAR BIN KASSIM

Citation

WA-42R-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-42R-11-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Evidence proved the accused received RM6,000 from Kany Logistics and the statutory presumption under s50(1) MACC Act applied; the accused failed to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities, making the conviction safe and restored. Sentences for the three related payments represent a single course of conduct and must run concurrently; global custodial term reduced to 30 months concurrent and fine fixed at RM30,000 (five times the gratification).
15 Sept 2023

TKH CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD 1. ) DMC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) YAP HOE HUP 3. ) TAN LEE HIONG 4. ) JEFFREY YAP LEE WEI

Citation

BA-22NCvC-295-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-295-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that RM2,438,100.00 was paid to defendant first; the receipt was shown to be internal and uncorroborated, plaintiff did not call DMC witnesses who could explain the receipt, and facts indicated DMC lacked funds. Consequently the sale contract is void for non-payment under s26 Contract Act and plaintiff's claims fail. There was no evidence of fraud or impropriety to justify piercing the corporate veil of the defendant company or holding directors personally liable.
27 Feb 2023

Worldwide Platinum Records Sdn. Bhd. TAN SEW CHENG

Citation

BA-22NCvC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-38-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove its claim on the balance of probabilities; the sole Plaintiff witness lacked knowledge of critical facts, the decisive witness (Plaintiff's director) was not produced, and despite the presumption of truth on an unopposed case the burden remained with the Plaintiff — therefore there was no case to answer and the claim is dismissed.
1 Aug 2022

MOHMAD ASRI BIN IBRAHIM

Citation

AH-82D-2-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AH-82D-2-02/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found statutory conditions of s31A DDA satisfied (arrest/constructive arrest, specimen taken under supervision by officers above sergeant rank, specimen analyzed by government science officer) and that a single bottle is legally sufficient. Therefore s37(k) presumption applied. Defence explanations were inconsistent, late and uncorroborated, failing to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities. Administrative guidelines (PTKPN/GPKKM) lack force of law and their non-compliance did not invalidate the prosecution. Accordingly conviction under s15(1)(a) DDA was warranted.