Evidence : Burden of proof
4 cases · July 2017 to August 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 17
3 25
2017–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 — Burden on plaintiff to prove facts in issue — Whether burden discharged on balance of probabilities — Documentary evidence versus oral evidence — Contemporaneous documents to be preferred over subsequent recollections — Whether oral evidence contradicting contemporaneous documents admissible — Hearsay evidence — Section 60(1) Evidence Act 1950 requirement for direct evidence — Whether witnesses had personal knowledge of facts — Whether testimony based on direct observation — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 — Whether failure to call material witness warrants adverse inference — Whether evidence withheld would have been unfavourable to withholding party 1 Balance of probabilities — Evidence Act s. 101. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Full trial — Declaration whether Defendants have the right to collect maintenance — Deed of Mutual Covenant — Duty in relation management of building — Claim dismissed. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Representative action — Rules of Court 2012 O. 15 r 12 — Requirement for representative action. 1 Shifting of evidential burden — Whether plaintiffs must prove case independently — Whether defendants required to assist in building case against themselves — Whether mere allegations in pleadings sufficient to establish possession of documents — Application of Evidence Act 1950 sections 101-103 1 Whether approach adopted by High Court and Court of Appeal was correct regarding the discharge of burden of proof by plaintiff seeking judgment in respect of matters of a technical nature — Whether plaintiff had proven its case on balance of probabilities against defendants Evidence : Expert evidence — Onus upon plaintiff to establish facts which by their nature demand expert evidence under s 45 Evidence Act 1950 — Whether open to court to hold said onus to have been discharged without plaintiff calling any expert evidence — Required standard of an expert witness — Whether fulfilled. 1
Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 — Burden on plaintiff to prove facts in issue — Whether burden discharged on balance of probabilities — Documentary evidence versus oral evidence — Contemporaneous documents to be preferred over subsequent recollections — Whether oral evidence contradicting contemporaneous documents admissible — Hearsay evidence — Section 60(1) Evidence Act 1950 requirement for direct evidence — Whether witnesses had personal knowledge of facts — Whether testimony based on direct observation — Adverse inference — Section 114(g) Evidence Act 1950 — Whether failure to call material witness warrants adverse inference — Whether evidence withheld would have been unfavourable to withholding party 1 case
Balance of probabilities — Evidence Act s. 101. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Full trial — Declaration whether Defendants have the right to collect maintenance — Deed of Mutual Covenant — Duty in relation management of building — Claim dismissed. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Representative action — Rules of Court 2012 O. 15 r 12 — Requirement for representative action. 1 case
Shifting of evidential burden — Whether plaintiffs must prove case independently — Whether defendants required to assist in building case against themselves — Whether mere allegations in pleadings sufficient to establish possession of documents — Application of Evidence Act 1950 sections 101-103 1 case
Whether approach adopted by High Court and Court of Appeal was correct regarding the discharge of burden of proof by plaintiff seeking judgment in respect of matters of a technical nature — Whether plaintiff had proven its case on balance of probabilities against defendants Evidence : Expert evidence — Onus upon plaintiff to establish facts which by their nature demand expert evidence under s 45 Evidence Act 1950 — Whether open to court to hold said onus to have been discharged without plaintiff calling any expert evidence — Required standard of an expert witness — Whether fulfilled. 1 case
Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Cases
wa-22ncc-139-03-2023
FGV PRODATA SYSTEMS SENDIRIAN BERHAD v 1. ) NEC CORPORATION OF MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD 2. ) NEC CAPITAL SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD PIHAK KETIGA Shinryu Co Sdn Bhd
21 August 2025
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-186-04-2021
1. ) LEE WEE KANG 2. ) CHAN CHEE HONG 3. ) LIM SIOK HUI 4. ) BOO HOOI PING 5. ) PERSATUAN PENDUDUK TAMAN CANARY v 1. ) KHOO SOON LEE REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) SKY JEWEL SDN BHD
30 July 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-609-09-2024
1. ) CHAN KAH LON 2. ) CHAN SEE MAI v 1. ) CHIN JIA YEE 2. ) CHIN THIEN CHOY 3. ) GIRONA VETERINARY SDN. BHD. 4. ) SOLE BIZ SDN. BHD.
9 June 2025
MYHC
02f-12-03-2016w
1. U TELEVISION SDN BHD 2. TAN SRI DATO’ SERI VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN … APPELLANTS v COMINTEL SDN BHD … RESPONDENT
31 July 2017
MYFC