Sockalingam a/l Kandiah v Sri TKS Management Sdn Bhd

Case Significance

Illustrates the strict application of the Ladd v Marshall three-limb test to an application under Order 55 rule 7 to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, refused where the evidence was obtainable at trial, lacked determining influence and failed the credibility limb.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application to adduce fresh evidence at the appeal stage and the application of the Ladd v Marshall test. The plaintiff, appealing from the Magistrates' Court in a dispute with the respondent company, applied under Order 55 rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 to introduce further evidence on appeal, namely the respondent company's financial reports for the years 2016 to 2018 and an electricity bill for the rented premises. The court applied the settled three-limb test in Ladd v Marshall, under which fresh evidence may be admitted on appeal only where it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the trial, where it would probably have an important influence on the result, and where it is credible. On the first limb, the court found that the financial reports could, with reasonable diligence, have been obtained for the trial, and that no satisfactory explanation had been given for the failure to do so; it added that the accounting classification in the reports was not determinative of legal liability and so would not likely have a determining influence. As to the electricity bill, it found that the bill did not relate to the tenancy period in issue and that, in any event, the tenancy required the plaintiff to secure utilities at his own expense, so a bill outside the relevant period had limited probative value and would not likely influence the case. The court further found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the credibility limb, there being no proper explanation or supporting exhibits. Concluding that the plaintiff had failed to meet the three-limb test, the court dismissed the applications with costs of RM5,000, apportioned RM2,500 to each of the two appeals. The judgment is a useful illustration of the strict application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements to an application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal.