T
Ting Chin Siong
Person 2 cases
About Ting Chin Siong
Ting Chin Siong appears as a party in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning May 2025 to June 2025. Ting Chin Siong appeared as applicant in 1 case, respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (2).
How many court cases involve Ting Chin Siong?
Ting Chin Siong appears in 2 published judgments from May 2025 to June 2025. Most commonly as applicant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
PRELUSION 1. The Plaintiff company (P) can be described as a joint venture company. It was a joint venture between the Defendant (D) and the other shareholders of P. 1 2. P was incorporated to venture into the education business. The Defendant bought shares in P. P alleges that D promised to transfer to P some manner of his know-how or intellectual property in education programmes. D denies that such a promise was made. 1 3. P asserts that when D did not transfer the alleged intellectual property to P, P suffered a loss. P alleges that it spent more than RM411K in expenses to promote and market its business, because it relied on D’s promise. 1 4. P sued D for this money. The Sessions Court dismissed P’s claim. P appeals to the High Court. Should P’s appeal be allowed or dismissed? 1 THE LAW ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION—THE “PLAINLY WRONG” TEST 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: SC), if the SC 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 SC’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