Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and issues

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2023

NASITAH BINTI SALLEH 1. ) ROYCE TECHNIC 2. ) KHAIRUL HAFIZAL BIN ABD JABAR

Citation

JA-A72NCvC-420-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-A72NCvC-420-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court admitted WhatsApp records (ID7/P7) on oral evidence that the device was in proper working order and documents were consistent; defendants entitled to statutory extension only for the full lockdown period (01.06.2021–28.06.2021) under s7 Covid-19 Act 2020 but not beyond because defendants failed to prove inability arising from Act 342 measures and their MITI permit rejection was caused by their defective application; evidence showed defendants continued works during recovery plan and delayed procurement; defendants therefore breached the contract for delays beyond the permitted extension…
11 Oct 2021

VIJAYAN A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN SHANTI A/P JEYAPALAN

Citation

B52NCVC-316-10-2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B52NCVC-316-10-2018 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found on credible and unchallenged documentary and witness evidence that the plaintiff paid the full purchase price and related disbursements and is the registered owner; the defendant was bound by her pleaded case and was barred from raising an unpleaded loan/security defence; oral evidence contradicting the written SPA was inadmissible under ss 91–92 Evidence Act 1950. Accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment: an order for vacant possession within 30 days, repayment of specified sums paid on defendant's behalf, payment of maintenance charges and agreed rent, interest at…
7 Dec 2020

APEX CLINIC SDN BHD (Company No.: 639641-P) LIM CHIANG YANG

Citation

JA-11BNCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-11BNCVC-2-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate erred by ignoring the binding Statement of Agreed Facts and by undervaluing admissible invoices and the Defendant's admissions; properly admitted documentary evidence and the Defendant's failures to prove alleged payments or coercion meant the Plaintiff established its claim on the balance of probabilities; the Defendant's defamation counterclaim failed for want of pleaded particulars (the words complained of) and was rightly dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

NASITAH BINTI SALLEH 1. ) ROYCE TECHNIC 2. ) KHAIRUL HAFIZAL BIN ABD JABAR

VIJAYAN A/L GOPALAKRISHNAN SHANTI A/P JEYAPALAN

APEX CLINIC SDN BHD (Company No.: 639641-P) LIM CHIANG YANG