Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Weight of expert evidence

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2025

FOO SWEE PENG 1. ) AMAR AMILY BIN YUZELAN 2. ) XXXX

Citation

BA-12B-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12B-27-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed. The trial judge was not plainly wrong: evidence justified RM1,000/month care pre-18 and RM500/month for 57 years post-18 for P2; no one-third contingency deduction was warranted given the nature of continuing care and inflationary realities; the RM100,000 deposit into a BSN trust account under Order 76 rule 12 was a proper exercise of judicial discretion; documents marked for identification carry no weight and the cross-appeal was struck out.
27 Dec 2024

Teoh Kiang Hong Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-23-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-23-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court allowed the consolidated appeals, held there is no special procedural rule for in-trial recantation, Khoon Chye Hin approach applies (scrutinise but do not automatically reject whole evidence), the onus to prove forgery lies on the party alleging it, trial judge's assessment of witnesses and documents (including attesting solicitor and private expert evidence) was not plainly wrong and must be reinstated; therefore Court of Appeal's reversal was unsustainable.
27 Dec 2024

Khor Gaik Thiam Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-26-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-26-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court held appeals allowed, set aside Court of Appeal and affirmed High Court: (1) in-trial recantation does not require a rigid two-stage leave procedure nor automatic exclusion of prior or subsequent testimony; courts must scrutinise recanted testimony against contemporaneous evidence; (2) Khoon Chye Hin principle applies such that partial untruth requires careful scrutiny but not wholesale rejection; (3) the party alleging forgery bears the onus of proving it; (4) a witness being a party or sued does not ipso facto render them an interested witness whose evidence must be rejected;…
27 Dec 2024

Khor Gaik Thiam Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-24-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-24-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court allowed the consolidated appeals, set aside the Court of Appeal decisions and reinstated the High Court findings because (1) recantation at trial is not governed by a special two‑stage leave regime and is a matter of assessment by the trial judge; (2) the Khoon Chye Hin approach (scrutinise but do not automatically reject the rest of testimony) applies when a witness changes testimony; (3) the SSA was proven and valid on the balance of probabilities; (4) the onus to prove forgery rests on the party alleging it (Henry) and was not discharged; (5) the attesting solicitor’s evi…
27 Dec 2024

1. ) Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd 2. ) Everest Landmark Sdn Bhd 3. ) Teoh Kiang Hong 4. ) Ong Bee Lee Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

Citation

02(f)-25-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-25-04/2021(P) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Federal Court held appeals should be allowed: there is no entrenched statutory two-stage procedure for in-trial recantation and recantation must be assessed with care; Khoon Chye Hin principles apply to recantation scrutiny; where forgery is alleged the party asserting forgery bears the onus to prove it; an attesting solicitor/party is not automatically an unreliable witness and his evidence must be weighed with other evidence; expert evidence weight is determined by methodology and materials (not payment). The Court set aside Court of Appeal decisions and affirmed the High Court findings tha…
2 May 2023

SHIREEN ANNE DAVIES 1. ) GERELDA A/P ANTHONY BARTHOLOMEW DINGS 2. ) JOSEPH ISIDORE LOPEZ

Citation

WA-22NCvC-558-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-558-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove, on the balance required to revoke a grant of probate under s34, that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity or that the 2nd Will was procured by undue influence; independent witnesses who attended the execution were credible and found the deceased lucid; plaintiff's expert evidence and statutory declarations were speculative and of limited weight; the inter-vivos gift was valid.
3 Jan 2023

TECHNOLITE MALAYSIA SDN BHD ALFALLAH CLEANTECH (M) SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCC-5-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because the trial judge failed to properly evaluate and appreciate the totality of the evidence by wrongly disregarding the SIRIM and manufacturer reports and unchallenged testimony that samples tested came from the failed lights; those reports and testimony established that the VarioLED met or exceeded the catalogue ambient temperature and that damage resulted from improper installation, and the Plaintiff failed to prove non‑compliance or causation on the balance of probabilities; accordingly the Sessions Court judgment was set aside and costs awarded to the Appellant.
8 Jul 2020

1. Sungei Kahang Palm Oil Sdn Bhd 2. Profina Teknik Sdn Bhd YKL Engineering Sdn Bhd

Citation

J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCVC
Case number

J-02(NCVC)(W)-1988-10/2016 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the patent was invalid for lack of novelty and, alternatively, for obviousness because the respondent's purported invention had been previously disclosed and used (prototype at Keck Seng, Kim Loong drawings and Desa Kim Loong machine and industry publications) prior to the priority date; the prototype was not shown to be confidential or subject to enforceable restrictions and therefore formed part of the prior art; the dependent claims likewise lacked novelty/ inventive step; consequently patent and copyright claims failed and the appellants' counterclaim (declarations of inval…