1. ) WONG ZHENG KAI 2. ) JOHAN BIN ABDUL SAMAD 3. ) CHIANG WAI LAM 4. ) Ting Tik Chai [Menyaman Dibawah Nama Peribadinya Dan Sebagai Perniagaan Milikan Tunggal Di Bawah Gaya Dan Nama Vizifix Enterprise) (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 202303104870 (Ra0099925-v)] 5. ) LEE WEE HOU v 1. ) MOHD SHAHRIZAL BIN SHARIF 2. ) MOHD HAZREL BIN MOHAMED HANIFFA
Catchwords
[1] This matter was set for full trial on 14.4.2025. The Plaintiffs had called three (3) witnesses to testify in Court. [2] The Defendants had none. In fact, this Court had earlier struck off the Defendants’ defence and counter claim on 19.2.2025 for non-compliance of an Unless Order pertaining to the filing of pre-trial documents. The Defendants were present on that day. Thereafter, a trial date was fixed for the matter and the Defendants were informed, accordingly. [3] The Defendants have not filed an appeal to the Court Order dated 19.02.2025 that struck off their defence and counterclaim under Order 34 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (ROC 2012). [4] In the absence of the Defendants during the trial as well as that there is no defence of the Defendant, and based on the evidence given by the Plaintiffs’ witnesses namely; PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this Court has then allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim with costs. [5] This Court finds that since the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs was not rebutted, thus the Plaintiffs has on a balance of probabilities, successful in proving their case in accordance with section 101 of the Evidence Act. [6] Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), (viii) and (x), is allowed with costs.
Practice Areas
1 This matter was set for full trial on 14.4.2025. The Plaintiffs had called three (3) witnesses to testify in Court. 2 The Defendants had none. In fact, this Court had earlier struck off the Defendants’ defence and counter claim on 19.2.2025 for non-compliance of an Unless Order pertaining to the filing of pre-trial documents. The Defendants were present on that day. Thereafter, a trial date was fixed for the matter and the Defendants were informed, accordingly. 3 The Defendants have not filed an appeal to the Court Order dated 19.02.2025 that struck off their defence and counterclaim under Order 34 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (ROC 2012). 4 In the absence of the Defendants during the trial as well as that there is no defence of the Defendant, and based on the evidence given by the Plaintiffs’ witnesses namely; PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, this Court has then allowed the Plaintiffs’ claim with costs. 5 This Court finds that since the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs was not rebutted, thus the Plaintiffs has on a balance of probabilities, successful in proving their case in accordance with section 101 of the Evidence Act. 6 Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (vii), (viii) and (x), is allowed with costs.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) WONG ZHENG KAI 2. ) JOHAN BIN ABDUL SAMAD 3. ) CHIANG WAI LAM 4. ) Ting ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated April 13, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-299-05-2024). The case was decided by Suzana binti Muhamad Said.
Key issues: [1] This matter was set for full trial on 14.4.2025. The Plaintiffs had called three (3) witnesses to testify in Court..
What was the outcome of 1. ) WONG ZHENG KAI 2. ) JOHAN BIN ABDUL SAMAD 3. ) CHIANG WAI LAM 4. ) Ting ...?
1. ) WONG ZHENG KAI 2. ) JOHAN BIN ABDUL SAMAD 3. ) CHIANG WAI LAM 4. ) Ting ... is a High Court decision dated April 13, 2025. The case was heard by Suzana binti Muhamad Said. See the full judgment for details.