S
SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd
Organisation 1 case
About SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd
SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning June 2025 to June 2025. SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd?
SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE Sdn Bhd appears in 1 published judgment from June 2025 to June 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).
Practice Areas
5. It is vital, in this post-trial Appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance court (here: the Sessions Court), if the Sessions Court was “plainly wrong”. 1 6. Our Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors 2020 12 MLJ 67 (FC); 2020 8 AMR 227; 2020 10 CLJ 1; 2020 6 MLRA 193, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the “plainly wrong” principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning. 1 7. Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary “plainly wrong” principle includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here— 1 (1) The Sessions Court’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through “no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence”: citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as United Engineers (M) Bhd v Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor 2011 1 AMCR 338 (FC); 2010 9 CLJ 785; 2010 2 MLRA 668; 2010 MLJU 2179. 1 (2) This phrase of the “lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence” encompasses these three errors— 1 (i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence); 1 (ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence); 1 (iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence). 1