R

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff

J 11 cases

About J Rozana binti Ali Yusoff

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff has been involved in 11 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning January 2025 to July 2025. These cases are from the High Court (11 cases). Rozana binti Ali Yusoff served as the delivering judge in 11 of these cases.

Key areas of jurisprudence include The security for costs is provided under Section 580A of Companies Act 2016 and Order 23 of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012. Section 580A of the Companies Act provides that: - (1 cases). Rozana binti Ali Yusoff holds the designation of Dato'.

11

Total Cases

11

Delivered

0

Sat On (Coram)

How many cases has Rozana binti Ali Yusoff been involved in?

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff has been involved in 11 published judgments from January 2025 to July 2025, serving as the delivering judge in 11 of them. Cases span the High Court (11 cases).

What types of cases does Rozana binti Ali Yusoff typically handle?

Based on 11 published judgments, Rozana binti Ali Yusoff's most common case types include The security for costs is provided under Section 580A of Companies Act 2016 and Order 23 of the Rules of Court (ROC) 2012. Section 580A of the Companies Act provides that: - (1 cases).

Practice Areas

Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang yang mantap bahawa mahkamah ini tidak akan campur tangan dengan keputusan hakim mahkamah rendah melainkan hakim tersebut didapati telah salah (plainly wrong) dalam membuat keputusan. Merujuk kepada kes ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. K-SHIN CORPORATION SDN BHD 2022 1 MLRA 151, mahkamah telah memutuskan seperti berikut:- 1 14 We were mindful of the limited role of the appellate court in relation to findings of facts made by the court of first instance. In the case of Lee Ing Chin v. Gan Yook Chin & Anor 2003 1 MLRA 95; 2003 2 MLJ 97; 2003 2 CLJ 19; 2003 2 AMR 357 where the Court of Appeal held as follows: "... an appellate court will not, generally be speaking, intervene unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. But appellate interference will take place in cases where there has been no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence." 16 In the Federal Court case of Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors 2020 6 MLRA 193; 2020 12 MLJ 67; 2020 10 CLJ 1, Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ delivering the judgment of the court, held inter alia as follows:" (1) An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge's conclusions on primary facts unless satisfied that he was plainly wrong. The 'plainly wrong' test operates on the principle that the trial court has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses on their evidence as opposed to the appellate court that acts on the printed records. 1 Secara ringkasnya, memandangkan Plaintif mempunyai suatu kontrak yang sah dan mengikat antara Plaintif dan Defendan pada semua masa yang material, Defendan juga mempunyai pengetahuan penuh bahawa pada semua masa yang material cek-cek iaitu bayaran progresif No.1 1 Dalam membuat keputusan terhadap permohonan ini, saya telah meneliti prinsip-prinsip undang-undang yang mantap berhubung permohonan untuk mengemukakan keterangan baru di peringkat rayuan, sebagaimana yang digariskan di bawah Aturan 55 Kaedah 7(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (KKM 2012). Kaedah tersebut memperuntukkan seperti berikut: 1 "At the hearing of any appeal, fresh evidence shall not be admitted unless the Judge is satisfied that: a at the hearing in Subordinate Court, the evidence was not available to the party seeking to use it or that reasonable diligence would not have made it so available; and b the fresh evidence, if true, would have had or would have been likely to have a determining influence upon the decision of the Subordinate Court. 1 9Dalam membuat keputusan, saya merujuk kepada undang-undang mantap yang menjadi panduan kepada Mahkamah dalam mendengar rayuan. Dalam kes Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors 2020 10 CLJ 1, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan seperti yang berikut: 1 "The law is clear in that the principle on which an appellate court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle. The principle encompasses differing and multiple circumstances but must necessarily apply, inter alia, to situations where it can be shown that the impugned decision is vitiated with plain material errors, or where crucial evidence had been misconstrued, or where the trial judge had so manifestly not taken proper advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses or not properly analysed the entirety of the evidence before him, or where a decision was arrived at without adequate judicial appreciation of the evidence such as to make it rationally unsupportable. This said, the criterion that is central to appellate intervention must remain that deference to the trier of fact is still the rule and not the exception; and the plainly wrong test ought not to be used by the appellate court as a means to substitute the impugned decision with its own". 1 I am guided by the trite law that the appellate court should not interfere with factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was “plainly wrong” or where there was no and/or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. In the case of NG HOO KUI & ANOR v. WENDY TAN LEE PENG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATES OF TAN EWE KWANG, DECEASED & ORS 2020 10 CLJ 1, the Federal Court held as follows: - 1

Cases Delivered (11)

pa-22ncvc-252-12-2019 MYHC

LITS Solutions Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Lai Thiam Sin 2. ) Leading Innovative Technologies & Systems Sdn Bhd

pa-12b-2-01-2024 MYHC

ALPHA HERITAGE (M)SDN BHD v SANJUNGAN NIAGA SDN BHD

pa-22ncvc-33-02-2020 MYHC

Parimala Devi A/p Thangamoney v Theyagarajan A/l Muniandy

pa-22ncc-12-04-2021 MYHC

AT GLOVE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) HAI HONG CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) P'NG SIM GUAN 3. ) P'NG LAI HENG 4. ) HAI HONG HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) AARON KHOO TENG SOON

pa-12ancvc-43-09-2023 MYHC

Loke Chee Wah v 1. ) Salmi Binti Mohd Shafie 2. ) Hani Ezra Binti Hussin

pa-22ip-2-12-2020 MYHC

Maiden Heritage Empire Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Tungku Herba Mathika Enterprise 2. ) Nurr Ayu Athika Binti Mohd Rodzi 3. ) Mahani Binti Manab

pa-22ncvc-183-08-2019 MYHC

Baguda (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Brady Technology Sdn. Bhd.

pa-12b-40-10-2024 MYHC

PANNIRSELVAM A/L VELU v DANA VALLEN A/L ARUMUGAM

pa-12b-32-07-2024 MYHC

DERMENDRAH A/L RAVICHANDRAN v 1. ) THIBAAN RAJ A/L RAJENDARAN 2. ) SUJATHA A/P PERUMALOO 3. ) ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

20 February 2025

pa-12b-22-05-2024 MYHC

1. ) RASHYTTEREN A/L KATHIRASEN 2. ) VETRIIVHELL A/L SARAVANAN v 1. ) LONPAC INSURANCE BHD 2. ) VARATA RAJOO A/L NALASAMY 3. ) DAYVANAI A/P MUNIANDY

4 February 2025

pa-22ncvc-182-11-2018 MYHC

3Q RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) MAGNUM CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 2. ) SOLIDWIN PROPERTY SDN BHD 3. ) HONG YEAM WAH 4. ) TEOH HAI HIN 5. ) KHAW TIEW CHAI 6. ) CHEN MUN HENG 7. ) Lee Chai Seng

21 January 2025