CONAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY BERHAD v 1. ) VQUEST SDN BHD 2. ) WEE SOON HING

wa-22ncc-576-08-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 2 February 2026 • WA-22NCC-576-08/2023 • 10 min read
3 cases cited (0 SG, 3 foreign)

Outcome

For the reasons above, I allow the plaintiff’s claim against the 1st defendant as set out in the Statement of Claim [Enclosure 2] at paragraph15 [a] to [b] with costs of RM 50,000 subject to allocatur.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncc-576-08-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Whether the plaintiff had sued the wrong party-Adverse inference drawn-The 1st defendant contends My Feta is liable to pay. The 1st defendant also contends it is only an agent for My Feta. [See Defence at paragraph 3[f]]. However, no witness from My Feta was called by the 1st defendant or subpoenaed to testify to support its allegation-The court will draw an adverse inference against the 1st defendant for the said failure under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950-The defendants have not even attempted to explain away any of those documents exhibited in the application for summary judgment namely delivery order, invoices, the statement of account and the 3 letters. If in fact they had not ordered the goods surely they would have done something about the delivery order erroneously being addressed to them and they would also have violently protested when they were invoiced for somebody else’s order-the failure to dispute give rise to judgment in favour of the plaintiff-Similarly, here the fact that the 1st defendant kept silent after receiving the invoice for payment, reminders for payment and statement of account from the plaintiff for payment to be paid leads me to view the 1st defendant’s witness as not telling the truth

Practice Areas

Evidence Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Hing Chambers Firm Nandrajog Firm Dinesh Nandrajog Counsel Defendant Hing Hong Ing Counsel Plaintiff Naziha Bte Ahmad Rupaii Counsel Plaintiff Syahana Azhari Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

CONAN MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY BERHAD Plaintiff VQUEST Sdn Bhd Defendant Wee Soon Hing Defendant

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)
[2012] 5 MLJ 515 [2014] 1 MLJ 210 [2014] 4 MLJ 428

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-576-08-2023)