Lim Thiam Huat v GA Skylight Berhad

wa-22ncc-567-12-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 12 September 2024 • WA-22NCC-567-12/2021 • 15 min read

5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Outcome

Page 16 of 18 [53] For the aforesaid reasons, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncc-567-12-2021). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Call and Put Option Agreements - Evidence Act 1950 Sections 64, 65, 66, 73A, 101, 102, 114(g) - Burden of proof - Service of notices - Contradictory witness testimony - Material inconsistencies - Witness testimony/evidence contradicts pleadings - Wrong photographic evidence - Office address confusion - Primary evidence requirement - Secondary evidence provisions - Document admissibility - Hearsay evidence - Failure to call material witness - Adverse inference - Section 114(g) application - Assessment of witness credibility - Contemporaneous documentation - COVID-19 travel restrictions - Corroborative evidence - Evidentiary lacuna

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Wan Muhammad Amin bin Wan Yahya Delivered

Counsel (9)

Jaslyn & Co. Firm Tuang, Chu & Co. Firm Chan Kheng Hoe Counsel Plaintiff Jaslyn Saw Wei Wen Counsel Plaintiff Joshua Ong Zheng Yao Counsel Defendant Lau Zhong Yan Counsel Defendant Pung Kian Bang Counsel Plaintiff Ryan Chu Soon Wei Counsel Defendant Samantha Au Yong Chi Yan Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

GA Skylight Berhad Defendant Lim Thiam Huat Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)

[1987] 1 MLJ 492 [1989] 1 MLJ 35 [2012] 5 MLJ 515 [2015] 6 MLJ 1 [2017] 5 CLJ 418

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-567-12-2021)