MINDDIOS BERHAD v TING CHIN SIONG
Catchwords
PRELUSION 1. The Plaintiff company (P) can be described as a joint venture company. It was a joint venture between the Defendant (D) and the other shareholders of P. 2. P was incorporated to venture into the education business. The Defendant bought shares in P. P alleges that D promised to transfer to P some manner of his know-how or intellectual property in education programmes. D denies that such a promise was made. 3. P asserts that when D did not transfer the alleged intellectual property to P, P suffered a loss. P alleges that it spent more than RM411K in expenses to promote and market its business, because it relied on D’s promise. 4. P sued D for this money. The Sessions Court dismissed P’s claim. P appeals to the High Court. Should P’s appeal be allowed or dismissed? THE LAW ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION—THE “PLAINLY WRONG” TEST 5. It is vital, in this post-trial appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance court (here: the Sessions Court: SC), if the SC was “plainly wrong”. 6. Our Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67 (FC); [2020] 8 AMR 227; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 6 MLRA 193, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the “plainly wrong” principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning. 7. Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary “plainly wrong” principle includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here— (1) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through “no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”: citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor [2011] 1 AMCR 338 (FC); [2010] 9 CLJ 785; [2010] 2 MLRA 668; [2010] MLJU 2179. (2) This phrase of the “lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence” encompasses these three errors— (i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence); (ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence); (iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence). (3) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through a “material error of law”: following Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC). (4) The SC’s decision is “plainly wrong” if it “could not reasonably be explained or justified”, making it a decision “which no reasonable judge could have reached”: citing Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177 (FC); [2018] 1 AMR 517; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 MLRA 263. (5) An appellate court is to evaluate whether the SC’s decision was “reasonably made”: paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra). 8. The “plainly wrong” principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the SC’s decision with my own (the appellate court’s) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way— [76] What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts. [78] Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reach
Practice Areas
PRELUSION 1. The Plaintiff company (P) can be described as a joint venture company. It was a joint venture between the Defendant (D) and the other shareholders of P. 2. P was incorporated to venture into the education business. The Defendant bought shares in P. P alleges that D promised to transfer to P some manner of his know-how or intellectual property in education programmes. D denies that such a promise was made. 3. P asserts that when D did not transfer the alleged intellectual property to P, P suffered a loss. P alleges that it spent more than RM411K in expenses to promote and market its business, because it relied on D’s promise. 4. P sued D for this money. The Sessions Court dismissed P’s claim. P appeals to the High Court. Should P’s appeal be allowed or dismissed? THE LAW ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION—THE “PLAINLY WRONG” TEST 5. It is vital, in this post-trial appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance court (here: the Sessions Court: SC), if the SC was “plainly wrong”. 6. Our Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors 2020 12 MLJ 67 (FC); 2020 8 AMR 227; 2020 10 CLJ 1; 2020 6 MLRA 193, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the “plainly wrong” principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning. 7. Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary “plainly wrong” principle includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here— (1) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through “no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”: citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor 2011 1 AMCR 338 (FC); 2010 9 CLJ 785; 2010 2 MLRA 668; 2010 MLJU 2179. (2) This phrase of the “lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence” encompasses these three errors— (i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence); (ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence); (iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence). (3) The SC’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through a “material error of law”: following Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd 2014 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC). (4) The SC’s decision is “plainly wrong” if it “could not reasonably be explained or justified”, making it a decision “which no reasonable judge could have reached”: citing Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal 2018 2 MLJ 177 (FC); 2018 1 AMR 517; 2018 2 CLJ 641; 2018 1 MLRA 263. (5) An appellate court is to evaluate whether the SC’s decision was “reasonably made”: paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra). 8. The “plainly wrong” principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the SC’s decision with my own (the appellate court’s) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way— 76 What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts. 78 Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reach
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
MINDDIOS BERHAD v TING CHIN SIONG is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated June 8, 2025 (citation: pa-12b-26-12-2022). The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James.
Key issues: PRELUSION 1. The Plaintiff company (P) can be described as a joint venture company. It was a joint venture between the Defendant (D) and the other shareholders of P..
What was the outcome of MINDDIOS BERHAD v TING CHIN SIONG?
MINDDIOS BERHAD v TING CHIN SIONG is a High Court decision dated June 8, 2025. The case was heard by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. See the full judgment for details.