Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fresh evidence

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

1. ) BUNEER PAK ENTERPRISE 2. ) ASMAH BINTI MOIDEEN 3. ) MOHAMAD ASWAD BIN SULIEMAN PANORAMIC EXCELLENCE SDN BHD

Citation

JA-12BNCC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCC-3-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the applicants failed to satisfy the three cumulative Ladd v Marshall requirements: the evidence could have been obtained with due diligence, it was not shown to be material to alter the result, and it lacked sufficient credibility. No exceptional circumstances existed to justify exercise of the court's discretionary power under Order 55 r.7/Order 38 r.12. Therefore the application to admit fresh evidence on appeal was dismissed and the appeal must proceed on the existing record.
7 Aug 2025

SOO CHEONG PUI 1. ) WONG SWEE KWOANG 2. ) LAI FOOK PING 3. ) WONG SEE MUN

Citation

BA-12B-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Impugned Judgment was obtained by fraud; the Appellant did not discharge the burden to call key witnesses or to establish forgery, the trial court's findings were unassailable on appeal, and prior trial and appellate opportunities (including fresh evidence avenues) bar re‑litigation of the issue.
18 Jun 2025

CHOONG SOON FOO TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-11BNCvC-7-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11BNCvC-7-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court admitted the fresh evidence because it could not reasonably have been obtained for use at the magistrate trial, the evidence was credible and potentially determinative on the identity/forgery issue, and the magistrate erred in failing to consider the insufficiency of the plaintiff's proof that the appellant personally opened the account; accordingly the magistrate's decision was set aside and the appeal allowed.
28 Apr 2025

TS GLOBAL NETWORK SDN. BHD. 1. ) TRIBUNAL RAYUAN KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA 2. ) SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-25-170-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-170-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to admit further evidence was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for fresh evidence under the Rules (O.55 r.7 and appellate rules) — the new documents would not have a determining influence on the judicial review of the Tribunal decision of 21.03.2023, the Grounds of Decision on costs are irrelevant to the subject matter and were not timely challenged, and the CA Cancellation Notice is immaterial because the applicant had accepted the primary decision and migrated voluntarily; the application was an abuse of process and is dismissed with cos…
21 Nov 2024

1. ) EAST WEST COLLEGE SDN BHD 2. ) EASTWEST EDU SDN BHD 3. ) NUR DIYANAH BINTI ABDUL MURAD 4. ) HABIBAH BINTI MOHD JONED 5. ) SHABISMI BINTI MOHD SHARIF AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCC-41-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-41-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to admit the CGC letter and the Credit Enhancer Scheme Guideline was dismissed because the Appellants failed to show reasonable diligence in obtaining the evidence (significant unexplained delay and relevant references in loan documents), the CGC letter lacked probative value to establish CGC liability or payment and thus would not have had a determining influence on the Sessions Court's summary judgment, and the proposed evidence sought to introduce matters inconsistent with the pleaded case.
27 Sept 2023

KK SATU HARTANAH SDN. BHD. TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-6-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 9 was dismissed because the appellant failed to satisfy the cumulative Ladd v Marshall tests: the handwriting report was obtained after trial and could have been procured with reasonable diligence, its findings were probabilistic/inconclusive and thus not sufficiently probative or credible to likely determine the outcome, the delay was unexplained, and admission would prejudice the respondent and amount to reopening the trial; additionally Enclosure 9 prayer [ii] seeking to set aside the Sessions Court judgment was misconceived.
18 Sept 2023

1. ) SHANMUGANATHAN A/L SILVADASS 2. ) Prisilla A/p Mathiyalagan JOHN MICHEAL A/L LOUIS MANUEL

Citation

AA-11BNCvC-12-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-11BNCvC-12-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that RM90,000 was disbursed; only RM38,000 was proven and certified cheque images show repayments exceeding RM60,000; the second defendant was not a party to the loan agreement; therefore the magistrate's judgment is set aside.
27 Jul 2022

YONG CHOO KIONG

Citation

AA-45-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-45-2-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that while the proffered documents and testimony were relevant, they constituted hearsay aimed at proving the truth of a recantation and therefore were inadmissible because the defence failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites under s32(1) Evidence Act 1950 (no adequate proof SP15 could not be produced and no sufficient diligent efforts under Criminal Procedure Code), the documents' authenticity was doubtful (material inconsistencies and signature discrepancies) and, consequently, the additional evidence could not, when assessed with the trial record, raise a reasonable doubt;…
12 Aug 2021

1. NADARAJAH A/L RISIYA 2. SASHIKUMAR A/L RISYIYA

Citation

DA-44-8-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-44-8-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was allowed because the WhatsApp messages and the police report satisfied the s317 CPC criteria: they became relevant only after sentence, are capable of belief in the absence of a first‑hand denial by the investigating officer, and could reasonably have created doubt about the voluntariness of the guilty plea; additionally the prosecution's failure to produce the investigating officer's affidavit warranted reliance on the applicants' averments and justified admitting the documents into the appeal record.
18 Sept 2020

Halim Bin Saad Chan Yok Peng

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Order 42 r.13 could not be used to set aside an inter partes summary judgment obtained after hearing on the merits; the High Court was functus officio and the defendant's late change of case, after admitting liability and failing to respond to demands, amounted to afterthoughts that did not amount to nullity or equitable fraud; the application was barred by res judicata and properly dismissed; appeal to Court of Appeal was the correct remedy for any fresh evidence.