H
Hani Ezra binti Hussin
Person 1 case
Hani Ezra binti Hussin appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
pa-12ancvc-43-09-2023
Loke Chee Wah v 1. ) Salmi Binti Mohd Shafie 2. ) Hani Ezra Binti Hussin
MYHC 19 March 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Hani Ezra binti Hussin
Hani Ezra binti Hussin appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning March 2025 to March 2025. Hani Ezra binti Hussin appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Hani Ezra binti Hussin?
Hani Ezra binti Hussin appears in 1 published judgment from March 2025 to March 2025. Most commonly as respondent (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