Tenaga Nasional Berhad v GOLDEN WOLF SDN. BHD

ja-22ncvc-45-04-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 January 2025 • JA-22NCvC-45-04/2021 • 15 min read

Catchwords

Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff has proven its case, and the claim for total loss with interest is allowed as pleaded. Reference is made to Mahadev Shankar J’s article “Putting and Suggesting in Cross-Examination” (January 1984 MLJ xi). The absence of relevant witnesses, including Simon Lim, renders the letter as documentary hearsay (see: Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Haji Abd Razak v PP [2022] 1 CLJ 491 (COA)). The document was not verified by Yee Teck Wai or any TM legal representative. Its contents are inadmissible as proof under Part C of the CBODs.

Judges (1)

Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor Delivered

Counsel (6)

Gooi & Azura Firm Othman Hashim & Co Firm Anis Natasha Counsel Plaintiff Belinda Low Siet Yan Counsel Defendant Izatunlina Counsel Plaintiff Selvi Sandrasegaran Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

GOLDEN WOLF Sdn Bhd Defendant TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD Plaintiff

Case Significance

Tenaga Nasional Berhad v GOLDEN WOLF SDN. BHD is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 27, 2025 (citation: ja-22ncvc-45-04-2021). The case was decided by Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor.

Key issues: Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff has proven its case, and the claim for total loss with interest is allowed as pleaded..

What was the outcome of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v GOLDEN WOLF SDN. BHD?

Tenaga Nasional Berhad v GOLDEN WOLF SDN. BHD is a High Court decision dated January 27, 2025. The case was heard by Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Stamp Act 1949 (Cap 378)

s 52

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-22ncvc-45-04-2021)