16 Apr 2026
This entry is a procedural filing noting a serial number for verification; no substantive legal determination was made on the merits.
8 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found the appellant failed to prove a binding contract or the defendant's indebtedness on the balance of probabilities; the confirmation document did not amount to an admission of debt given doubts on provenance and inconsistency with auditor practice; the sole witness's credibility was undermined and the claimed quantum was uncertain, so no appellate intervention was warranted.
5 Feb 2026
The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the Plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that RM980,000.00 was paid; the acknowledgement letter's authenticity was not established; witness evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated; adverse inference under s114(g) was inapplicable; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
20 Nov 2024
No substantive legal determination made; document is an administrative notice indicating the presence of a serial number for eFILING verification.
24 Oct 2024
No substantive decision recorded; the document only records an eFILING serial number for verification and does not resolve any contested legal issue.
23 Feb 2023
The court held the Defendant raised bona fide, substantial disputes about the existence and authenticity of the alleged loan agreements and supporting documents such that the matter could not be resolved as a plain and obvious case without a full trial; consequently the summary judgment application was dismissed.
11 Sept 2019
The Court affirmed the High Court: the Personal Loan document was authentic and admissible; the parties evidenced an intention that repayment would be on demand so limitation ran from the oral demand in November 2009 (making the 2015 suit timely); the earlier appellate order precluding strike-out estopped the defendant from relitigating limitation and abuse issues; the refiling did not constitute abuse of process because the earlier order was not peremptory and the defendant was bound by the earlier appellate decision; therefore the appellant's challenge failed.