1. ) Tea Chun Hia @ Teoh Chun Hia 2. ) Lee Chee Khoon 3. ) Lee Hui Khoon 4. ) Lee Wooi Khong v Lim Peng Khoon

a-01ncvcw-193-04-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 4 May 2026 • A-01(NCvC)(W)-193-04/2023 • 34 min read

3 cases cited (0 SG, 3 foreign)

Outcome

We therefore do not see any merit in the appeal, and for the foregoing reasons, we also dismiss the appeal in respect of the Disqualification Application with costs Conclusion 91. In the premises, we are unanimous that both the Main Appeal and the Disqualification Application Appeal have no merits and we order the two appeals be dismissed with costs fixed at RM80,000.00 for the Main Appeal and RM8,000.00 for the Disqualification Application Appeal, both subject to payment of allocator.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (a-01ncvcw-193-04-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Appellants had fraudulently transferred lands belonging to the Respondent to themselves by relying on a forged settlement agreement and a forged power of attorney - whether the learned Judicial Commissioner (as he then was) in delivering the judgment after the 3rd Appellant was adjudged a bankrupt without leave being obtained under section 8(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 had proceeded in contravention of the said section, rendering the judgment null and void - whether the learned Judicial Commissioner (as he then was) erred in his determination of the effect of section 85 of the Evidence Act 1950 read with section 3(2) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1967 and whether the Commissioner for Oaths ought to be called to testify - whether the learned Judicial Commissioner (as he then was) had exercised due judicial appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses - whether the Settlement Agreement, PA, and the Payment Voucher were properly treated as IDs only when these documents were placed as Part B documents - Judgment delivered after 3rd Appellant’s Bankruptcy - Statutory Presumption and Burden of Proof - Admissibility of Part B Documents - Rule 28(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and under Order 92, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012

Practice Areas

Bankruptcy & Insolvency Civil Procedure Evidence

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Azman bin Abdullah Coram Ong Chee Kwan Delivered

Counsel (8)

Kow, Lau & Ezra Firm Presgrave & Matthews Firm A. Suppiah Counsel Respondent Emile Ezra bin Md Hussain Counsel Appellant Karin Lim Ai Ching Counsel Respondent Nicholas Kow Eng Chuan Counsel Appellant Nicholas Lim Wei Jian Counsel Respondent Nur Amelia Izlyn binti Azhari Counsel Appellant

Parties (5)

Lee Chee Khoon Appellant Lee Hui Khoon Appellant Lee Wooi Khong Appellant Lim Peng Khoon Respondent Tea Chun Hia @ Teoh Chun Hia Appellant

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 102 s 67 s 85

Insolvency Act 1967 (Cap 360)

Power of Attorney Act 1949

s 3(2)

Powers of Attorney Act 1949

s 3(2)

Powers of Attorney Act 1967

s 3(2)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)

[1995] 3 MLJ 189 [2017] 4 MLJ 697 [2022] 4 CLJ 854

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (a-01ncvcw-193-04-2023)