1. ) LEOW KIM YOON 2. ) OH SOON HENG 3. ) OH SOON LAI v LIAO BINGXIANG [SEBAGAI WASI KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA NAI KONG HUI]

Case Significance

Confirms that an appellate court will uphold a Sessions Court's finding of liability to pay for renovation work done where the works are not denied and the trial judge's findings, consistent with sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, are properly reached.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, concerns an appeal from a Sessions Court judgment holding the appellants liable to pay for renovation and repair work done to a property, and the limited role of an appellate court where the trial court's findings are sound. The respondent, a renovation enterprise, had claimed against the three appellants in the Sessions Court for a sum of RM116,280 in respect of renovation and repair works carried out, and the Sessions Court judge found the appellants liable to pay that amount. On appeal the appellants contended that the Sessions Court judge had fallen into confusion in his understanding and factual findings, in particular in concluding that they were liable to pay the debt. The Court examined the basis of the trial judge's decision, noting that there was no denial that the works had been carried out, and that where the work of renovation or repair had been performed, payment for it fell due. It observed that the trial judge's findings of law were consistent with the burden-of-proof provisions in sections 101 to 103 of the Evidence Act 1950. Applying the principle that an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's findings where they are properly reached and the law has been correctly interpreted and applied, the Court found that the questions raised by the appellants were without foundation and merit. It held that there was no need to interfere with the Sessions Court judge's decision, and accordingly declined to disturb the judgment, so that the appellants remained liable for the renovation debt. The decision illustrates that an appellate court will uphold a Sessions Court's finding of liability for work done where the findings are orderly and the applicable law has been correctly applied. The decision also reflects the settled division between the roles of trial and appellate courts: the trial judge, having heard the evidence, is best placed to make findings of fact, and an appellate court sitting on the record will not re-open those findings merely because a party is dissatisfied, intervening only where the findings are unsupported or the law has been misapplied.