Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence and burden of proof

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2025

1. ) NUR ALISSA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 2. ) ANIS JUZAILAH BINTI MAT ISA SHUIB BIN MAT

Citation

KA-B53KJ-40-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

KA-B53KJ-40-11/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court accepted defendant 100% liable on earlier liability finding and assessed quantum by weighing medical reports, expert testimony, the Compendium and relevant authorities; awards were fixed at amounts the court found reasonable for each injury, future surgery and physiotherapy were allowed only in part (1/3) because comparable treatment available at public hospitals, orthosis claim rejected for lack of necessity and proof of lifelong need, and loss of earnings claim dismissed for lack of documentary evidence.
14 Jul 2025

ON SEMICONDUCTOR MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

NA-63ES-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-63ES-3-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Although the prosecution established a prima facie case based on official sampling and laboratory analysis showing cadmium at 1.04 mg/L, the defence adduced credible, independent laboratory evidence and challenged the integrity of the prosecution's samples (temperature, pH, storage, equipment and chain of custody). Those challenges raised reasonable doubt such that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the accused must be acquitted under Regulation 11(1)(b) of the Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009.
28 May 2025

Tenaga Nasional Berhad NG JUN FOH

Citation

JD-A72NCvC-32-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JD-A72NCvC-32-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

On the balance of probabilities the court found the meter installation at the Defendant's premises had been tampered with; the Plaintiff's use of the Energy Commission 'error method' and five-year back-billing was lawful and reasonable, the calculated loss of RM52,441.10 was properly quantified and not time-barred, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with costs and interest as pleaded.
21 Apr 2025

[ ] KHAIRUL HISHAM BIN MAT YUSOF

Citation

DH-83-19-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DH-83-19-02/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court found prosecution proved all elements of s.41(1) APJ: accused was the driver, his driving created a dangerous situation by driving a heavy loaded trailer at speed on a wet, winding descent and lost control entering the opposing lane causing the victim's death; defence explanation of tyre blowout was disbelieved as inconsistent with Puspakom inspection, eyewitness testimony, dashcam evidence and the physical consequences; therefore accused guilty and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment, RM20,000 fine (or 12 months custody), and driving disqualification for 8 years; execution of sentence su…
21 Mar 2025

ZHONG E SDN BHD 1. ) FLOWCRETE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) THEN LIAT NYAP 3. ) NG LEONG MUNG 4. ) CHAW FONG TENG 5. ) HENG FOOK CHOON

Citation

BA-22NCvC-430-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-430-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the evidence the transactions were sham paper trades disguising loans: defence produced cogent money‑trail evidence, documentary anomalies and implausible commercial practices which plaintiff failed to rebut. The Plaintiff thereby acted as an unlicensed moneylender; under Moneylenders Act 1951 s15 and Contracts Act 1950 s24 the underlying lending transactions are void and any security or guarantee given to secure those illegal transactions (including the Supplemental Guarantee executed by the 4th and 5th Defendants) is void and unenforceable. The Plaintiff's claim against the 4th and 5th D…
13 Aug 2024

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD Tan Li Hua

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-23-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-23-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellate court concluded the trial judge erred in rejecting the licensee's technician evidence and Exhibit P1. The court accepted that SP1 and SP2 were competent, that physical signs of tampering and calibrated test results established meter interference on a balance of probabilities, and that the s.38(4) certified statement provided prima facie proof of the claimed quantum. Defendant failed to rebut the estimate; appeal allowed and defendant ordered to pay RM207,932.65 plus costs RM7,000.00.
25 Mar 2024

GAN CHAI KIONG LIM CHIN MOH AGENCY SDN. BHD.

Citation

NA-12ANCvC-14-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-12ANCvC-14-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to strictly prove entitlement to commission for the period June 2018–October 2021; unchallenged financial documents and attendance records established entitlement only to June 2018 commission, and plaintiff's payments for wages, EPF and SOCSO were properly set off against any commission, therefore the Sessions Court assessment awarding RM2,330 was correct and appeal is dismissed.
16 Aug 2023

YEOH WEOI LEONG & 248 OTHERS 1. ) HAJI AZMI BIN TAMAT (Disaman sebagai bekas Pengarah Negeri Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Pulau Pinang) 2. ) PENGARAH NEGERI JABATAN BOMBA DAN PENYELAMAT PULAU PINANG 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN BOMBA DAN PEN

Citation

PA-21NCC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-21NCC-1-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim was dismissed because it was time-barred under section 2(a) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 and, on the merits, the Plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Two Release Letters were illegally issued or that the Defendants breached statutory duties or acted with malice; the Two Release Letters were issued after proper inspection based on certified plans and any non-compliance arose after CCC due to later renovations; damages were unproven.
16 Apr 2023

PEMPETISYEN ONG TZE HOW CHONG CHAR CHYEE

Citation

JA-33-198-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-198-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant failed to prove a material change in circumstances or exceptional circumstances required to vary a consent decree under s.96; evidential record (audio/video) was insufficient and possibly influenced; judicial interview of the children supported maintaining the status quo; therefore variation refused.
2 Mar 2023

TIME TO SHINE LTD (sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Hong Kong) ETERNAL EVENT MANAGEMENT & SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12BNCC-27-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-27-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Respondent failed to prove a force majeure occurrence that prevented performance; factual chronology showed premeditated cancellation and lack of necessary preparations by the Respondent making performance impossible through its own default; contractual cancellation clauses and clause requiring payment where the Artist was ready meant the performance fee was not refundable; Sessions Court's acceptance of force majeure was therefore erroneous and its orders were set aside.