Arzanna Binti Abdullah v 1. ) Ambank (M) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Kasha Parking Sdn Bhd 3. ) La Ode Ardi Rasila

Case Significance

Instructive on the inadmissibility of computer-generated documents tendered without a section 90A certificate where an objection is taken, and on the appellate apportionment of liability among multiple defendants.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns two consolidated appeals from a Sessions Court arising out of a claim by an individual plaintiff against a bank, a parking or security-services company, and an individual third defendant. The Sessions Court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim against all defendants and dismissed the first defendant bank's counterclaim, and both the plaintiff and the first defendant appealed, the first defendant's appeal being directed at the Sessions Court's failure to decide its claim for indemnity or contribution against the second defendant. The court, per Indra Nehru Savandiah J, having reviewed the notes of evidence, exhibits and submissions, reached a split outcome. It affirmed the Sessions Court's decision in favour of the first defendant bank, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the bank with costs of RM10,000, but it allowed the plaintiff's appeal against the second defendant, finding the second defendant 100% liable, with costs of RM10,000. A significant part of the reasoning concerned the admissibility of computer-generated documents under section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950: because opposing counsel had objected to the production of documents without the certificate required by section 90A, the court held those documents inadmissible as exhibits, distinguishing an authority in which no such objection had been taken, and noting also that the second defendant had failed to prove that the computer producing the documents was operating properly when the printouts were made. The court was constrained not to make any order against the third defendant because there was no proof of service of the writ or any affidavit of service on him, even though he was by then in prison. The judgment is instructive on the effect of an objection to computer-generated documents tendered without a section 90A certificate and on the apportionment of liability among multiple defendants on appeal.