Aaron Khoo Teng Soon

Person 1 case

Aaron Khoo Teng Soon appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

pa-22ncc-12-04-2021

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

MYHC 21 April 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Aaron Khoo Teng Soon

Aaron Khoo Teng Soon appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning April 2025 to April 2025. Aaron Khoo Teng Soon appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Aaron Khoo Teng Soon?

Aaron Khoo Teng Soon appears in 1 published judgment from April 2025 to April 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).

Practice Areas

Having heard the submissions of both parties and considered the agreed issues, I am of the view that the main issue for determination is whether the SSA was validly terminated by the Plaintiff. The other related issues shall be addressed as and when necessary, in the course of this judgment. At the outset, I am mindful of the trite principle that he who asserts must prove. In this regard, the Plaintiff bears the legal and evidential burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case against the Defendants. Only upon discharging this burden does the onus shift to the Defendants to establish their defence. In the case of Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy s/o Sithambaram Pillai 1997 2 CLJ 153; 1997 3 MLJ 61, the Federal Court held: "Sections 101, 102, 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 deal with the burden of proof. Under s. 101, it is provided that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Under s. 102 the burden of proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Under s. 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Under s. 106, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him". 1

Defendant (1)

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

21 April 2025