Khor Gaik Thiam v Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry

02f-24-04-2021p Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 26 December 2024 • 02(f)-24-04/2021(P) • 87 min read

66 cases cited (10 SG, 56 foreign)

Catchwords

Duty of appellate court on facts finding by the trial judge - differences of the approach of the high court and the court of appeal on the assessment of evidence - the plainly wrong test - recantation of evidence - law and procedure on recantation - reliability and credibility of expert witness and interested witness.

Judges (3)

Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim Delivered Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Coram Rhodzariah binti Bujang Coram

Parties (2)

Khor Gaik Thiam Appellant Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry Respondent

Case Significance

Khor Gaik Thiam v Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated December 26, 2024 (citation: 02f-24-04-2021p). <p>This appeal was heard together with Civil Appeal Nos. 02(f)-23-04/2021(P), 02(f)-25-04/2021(P), and 02(f)-26-04/2021(P), all arising from a family property dispute in Penang between the Teoh/Theow brothers. The key legal issues involved the appellate court's approach to reviewing trial judge findings on credibility and the treatment of recanted evidence. The case was decided on the same grounds as the lead appeal.</p> The panel comprised Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Rhodzariah binti Bujang, with Amar Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim delivering the judgment.

Summary

This appeal was heard together with Civil Appeal Nos. 02(f)-23-04/2021(P), 02(f)-25-04/2021(P), and 02(f)-26-04/2021(P), all arising from a family property dispute in Penang between the Teoh/Theow brothers. The key legal issues involved the appellate court's approach to reviewing trial judge findings on credibility and the treatment of recanted evidence. The case was decided on the same grounds as the lead appeal.

What was the outcome of Khor Gaik Thiam v Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry?

<p>This appeal was heard together with Civil Appeal Nos. 02(f)-23-04/2021(P), 02(f)-25-04/2021(P), and 02(f)-26-04/2021(P), all arising from a family ...

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 1965

s 132C

Courts of Judicature Act 1964

s 96

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

s 399

Evidence Act

s 101

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Evidence Enactment

s 102

Legal Profession Act 1976 (Cap 166)

Powers of Attorney Act 1949

s 3

Cases Cited (66)

SG (2)

[2008] SGHC 50 [2013] SGCA 44

SLR (8)

[1990] 2 SLR(R) 414 [1996] 2 SLR(R) 957 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 [2002] 2 SLR(R) 959 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 [2013] 4 SLR 308

UK (4)

[1954] 3 All ER 745 [1955] 3 All ER 48 [1966] 1 QB 146 [2014] 1 WLR 2600

AU (1)

[2001] WASCA 260

MY (44)

[1939] 1 MLJ 253 [1959] 1 MLJ 193 [1961] 1 MLJ 105 [1970] 2 MLJ 61 [1971] 1 MLJ 43 [1975] 1 MLJ 119 [1977] 1 MLJ 15 [1980] 2 MLJ 86 [1981] 1 MLJ 212 [1983] 2 MLJ 172 [1983] 2 MLJ 232 [1984] 2 MLJ 19 [1993] 1 MLJ 182 [1993] 3 MLJ 217 [1994] 2 MLJ 12 [1995] MLJU 73 [1997] 3 MLJ 61 [1999] 4 MLJ 485 [2000] 1 MLJ 656 [2002] 3 MLJ 432 [2003] 3 MLJ 257 [2004] 3 MLJ 405 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2011] 1 MLJ 581 [2011] 6 MLJ 1 [2012] 6 MLJ 153 [2012] MLJU 837 [2013] MLJU 1585 [2014] 3 MLJ 228 [2015] 4 CLJ 20 [2015] 7 CLJ 584 [2017] 4 MLJ 697 [2017] 7 CLJ 715 [2018] 2 MLJ 177 [2018] 4 CLJ 705 [2018] 6 CLJ 683 [2020] 12 MLJ 165 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2020] 5 MLJ 442 [2020] 9 MLJ 409 [2020] AMEJ 0035 [2020] MLJU 57 [2022] 4 CLJ 854 [2024] MLJU 2538

IN (7)

(2007) 9 SCC 1 (2010) 1 SCC 199 AIR 1961 SC 1474 AIR 1964 SC 136 AIR 1980 SC 531 AIR 2001 SC 3031 AIR 2012 SC 478

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (02f-24-04-2021p)