CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

wa-22ncc-584-08-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 7 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-584-08/2023

Catchwords

claim for fire consequential loss-that a plaintiff bringing an action for damages bears the burden to prove that he has suffered the damage and prove the quantum of the damages that are claimed-Plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court, saying: ‘This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages’. They have to prove it-Quantum of alleged-18. Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950-The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case-The court may presume—(a)…(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it-19. The failure of PW6 to adduce supporting documents can only give rise to an adverse inference under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 that such evidence would affect the plaintiff adversely

Practice Areas

claim for fire consequential loss-that a plaintiff bringing an action for damages bears the burden to prove that he has suffered the damage and prove the quantum of the damages that are claimed-Plaintiffs must understand that if they bring actions for damages it is for them to prove their damage; it is not enough to write down the particulars, and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court, saying: ‘This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages’. They have to prove it-Quantum of alleged-18. Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950-The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case-The court may presume—(a)…(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it-19. The failure of PW6 to adduce supporting documents can only give rise to an adverse inference under section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 that such evidence would affect the plaintiff adversely

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (2)

BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD Defendant CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL Sdn Bhd Plaintiff

Case Significance

CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 7, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-584-08-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD?

CLASSIC PALM OIL MILL SDN BHD v BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD is a High Court decision dated October 7, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.