Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to cross‑examine

Legal area

Court

16 May 2024

TARGET PRECAST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) TINTA ANGGUN ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) NG YIN MENG 3. ) NG SU YEE

Citation

WA-22NCC-100-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-100-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the Plaintiff's unchallenged evidence and the Master Statement of Account admissible under s90A as proving how the payments were applied to earlier invoices; the written guarantee rendered the 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally liable for sums outstanding from the 1st defendant; accordingly the Plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that RM795,845.53 remained due and that contractual late payment interest under Clause 7 is enforceable. The Plaintiff succeeded on its claim.
12 Oct 2022

1. ) MULTI NETWORK SDN BHD 2. ) RH MUTIARA SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JARI JAYA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12BC-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BC-1-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the Tripartite Agreement created privity and liability to the plaintiff; defendants received or failed to deny demand letters and thus were indebted; Clause 8's back-to-back conditional payment term is void under s35(1) and (2)(a) CIPAA and cannot defeat the claim; absence of plaintiff's site employee did not justify adverse inference against plaintiff given the documentary and witness evidence; suppression of defendants' project payment documents warranted an adverse inference; consequently the appeal was dismissed and the Sessions Court judgment a…
9 Nov 2021

KARUN KLASIK SDN BHD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-609-05/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-609-05/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

High Court judge erred in rejecting unchallenged primary oral and documentary evidence of destroyed processed stock and in focusing on cost of raw materials; correct measure is market value/loss of profit recoverable for destroyed processed goods; Appellant proved loss; deduction of 20% for failure to mitigate is appropriate; award for wages limited to 13 days; general damages increased from nominal sum.
25 Aug 2020

AMIL BIN SALLEH AFHAM WAJDI BIN AHMAD (Seorang budak yang mendakwa melalui Sahabat Wakil dan bapanya yang sah iaitu Ahmad bin Mohd Zain)

Citation

DA-12B-30-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-12B-30-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Sessions Court's finding that the plaintiff's version of events and the marked point of impact 'X' were more probable was correct because the marking and silent evidence were unchallenged and the failure to cross-examine amounted to acceptance; therefore liability apportioned 80% to appellant and 20% contributory negligence to respondent is affirmed, and there was no basis to disturb the quantum for prosthesis.
17 Feb 2020

Lor Thim Ming Huang Yun Yan & 1 Lg

Citation

WA-12BNCC-25-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-25-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appellant failed to prove the alleged guarantee/representations and failed to prove renovation costs; the Ledgers and defendants’ evidence (unimpeached by cross-examination) showed funds were used for company operations; no consensus ad idem existed on a settlement sum so no binding settlement; accordingly the Sessions Court’s allowance of the counterclaim for RM150,501.57 is upheld, but there was a breach in failing to make the appellant a shareholder and nominal damages of RM5,000 are awarded.
22 Jul 2019

HATFIELD WRIGHT SDN BHD … (No. Syarikat: 1030155-P) 1. BAN HIN ELECTRICAL & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 946418-A) 2. DATO LOW BAN HIN (No. K/P: 580731-10-5935) 3. LOW BAN SENG (No. K/P: 670520-10-6363) …

Citation

BA-22C-46-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-46-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the Defendants failed to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witness and did not call any evidence, the Plaintiff's unchallenged evidence proved the existence of the contract, the payment of RM3,000,000, the outstanding balance of RM5,000,000, and the validity and enforceability of the directors' personal guarantees, entitling the Plaintiff to judgment against all Defendants for the outstanding sum and costs.

Malaysia Case Law

TARGET PRECAST INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) TINTA ANGGUN ENGINEERING SDN BHD 2. ) NG YIN MENG 3. ) NG SU YEE

1. ) MULTI NETWORK SDN BHD 2. ) RH MUTIARA SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JARI JAYA SDN BHD

KARUN KLASIK SDN BHD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

AMIL BIN SALLEH AFHAM WAJDI BIN AHMAD (Seorang budak yang mendakwa melalui Sahabat Wakil dan bapanya yang sah iaitu Ahmad bin Mohd Zain)

Lor Thim Ming Huang Yun Yan & 1 Lg

HATFIELD WRIGHT SDN BHD … (No. Syarikat: 1030155-P) 1. BAN HIN ELECTRICAL & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 946418-A) 2. DATO LOW BAN HIN (No. K/P: 580731-10-5935) 3. LOW BAN SENG (No. K/P: 670520-10-6363) …