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

Case Significance

Illustrates that a party seeking to set aside a judgment as obtained by fraud bears the burden of proving the fraud under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950, and that failing to discharge that initial burden, the challenge fails and the burden does not shift to the opposing party.

This High Court decision concerns an attempt to set aside an earlier Sessions Court judgment on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, and the burden of proving such fraud. The appellant had earlier been found liable, as a contractor, together with a client, for negligence in causing damage to a neighbouring property, and substantial damages had been assessed against them. In the present action the appellant sought to set that judgment aside, alleging that part of the assessed damages, in the sum of RM340,500.00, had been founded on a set of falsified documents, namely a quotation, invoices and receipts said to have come from a supplier company for the supply of tiles and repair services, and that a signature on those documents had been forged. The appellant claimed to have discovered the falsity through inquiries made with the supplier while an appeal against the earlier judgment was pending. The Sessions Court dismissed the claim after a full trial, and the appellant appealed. The court reaffirmed that the legal and evidential burden of proving the alleged fraud, forgery and fabrication lay on the appellant, under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950, and that a failure to discharge that initial burden did not shift it to the respondents. It emphasised the importance of key-witness testimony in proving fraudulent acts, and considered that the appellant had had the opportunity to test the impugned documents at the original trial, where they had been admitted under the documentary-hearsay exceptions after argument. Finding no appealable error in the Sessions Court's conclusion that the fraud had not been proved, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00, noting that an unresolved criminal charge against one respondent did not advance the matter. The judgment is a useful illustration of the burden and standard of proof for setting aside a judgment obtained by fraud.