T
Teh Kean Hooi
Person 1 case
Teh Kean Hooi appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
pa-12b-21-09-2021
TEH KEAN HOOI v 1. ) SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE SDN BHD 2. ) TEOH BOON THONG
MYHC 23 June 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Teh Kean Hooi
Teh Kean Hooi appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning June 2025 to June 2025. Teh Kean Hooi appeared as appellant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Teh Kean Hooi?
Teh Kean Hooi appears in 1 published judgment from June 2025 to June 2025. Most commonly as appellant (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