MARCUS MAR HUNG THAN v ALUNAJATI SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that although an appellate court defers to a trial court's findings absent an error of fact or law, it will intervene and set aside the decision where an appealable error is demonstrated, and confirms that an unrebutted, unbiased expert report may properly be accepted.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an appeal against a Sessions Court judgment in a dispute over renovation works. The appellants — the owner of a condominium unit and his company — had sued the respondent, alleging that it had failed to complete and properly carry out renovation works at the unit, and had claimed substantial sums by way of repayment. The Sessions Court dismissed the claim with costs of RM20,000, and the appellants appealed against the whole of that decision. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that an appellate court will not interfere with the findings and decision of the trial judge unless there is an error of fact or law in those findings. It examined the evidence, including an architect's expert report, and noted that the party challenging it had failed to establish any element of bias in the preparation of the report or to produce any competing architect's report to rebut it, so that the costs it recorded were reasonable, and it observed that the respondent's counterclaim had failed for want of proof. Having reviewed the Sessions Court's findings, however, the Court concluded that there was an appealable error in the decision below, making this an appropriate case for appellate intervention. It accordingly allowed the appellants' appeal against the Sessions Court's decision and set that decision aside, awarding costs of RM12,000. The judgment illustrates that although appellate courts accord considerable deference to a trial court's findings, that deference yields where the findings are shown to be affected by a demonstrable error of the kind that warrants correction on appeal. Here the appealable error identified in the Sessions Court's reasoning was sufficient to displace the usual deference, and the Court substituted its own conclusion on the disputed contractual questions, allowing the appeal and reversing the dismissal of the appellants' renovation claim.