TEH KEAN HOOI v 1. ) SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE SDN BHD 2. ) TEOH BOON THONG
30 cases cited
(0 SG, 30 foreign)
Catchwords
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”. 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. 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) 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. (2) This phrase of the “lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence” encompasses these three errors— (i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence); (ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence); (iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence). (3) The Sessions Court’s judgment is “plainly wrong” if it was arrived at through a “material error of law”: following Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC). (4) The Sessions Court’s decision is “plainly wrong” if it “could not reasonably be explained or justified”, making it a decision “which no reasonable judge could have reached”: citing Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd & Anor Appeal [2018] 2 MLJ 177 (FC); [2018] 1 AMR 517; [2018] 2 CLJ 641; [2018] 1 MLRA 263. (5) An appellate court is to evaluate whether the Sessions Court’s decision was “reasonably made”: paragraph 77 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra). 8. The “plainly wrong” principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the Sessions Court’s decision with my own (the appellate court’s) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way— [76] What is pertinent is that, the ‘plainly wrong’ test is not intended to be used by an appellate court as a mean to substitute its own decision for that of the trial court on the facts. [78] Hence following this court’s ruling in Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra an appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was ‘plainly wrong’ where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and so was one which no reasonable judge could have reached. If the decision did not fall within any of the aforesaid category, it is irrelevant, even if the appellate court thinks that with whatever degree of certainty, it considered that it would have reached a different conclusion from the trial judge.[emphasis added] 9. Put differently, even if an appellate court finds, on the evidence and the facts of a case, that the appellate court would have come to a different decision, the appellate court, when it is deciding on the appeal, should not bypass an analysis of the first-instance court’s reasoning. 10. I must consider the Sessions Court’s appreciation of the evidence and the Sessions Court’s application of the principles of law, in the context of these elaborative tenets, to see if the Sessions Court has committed a fundamental error. Summary of
Judges (1)
Case Significance
TEH KEAN HOOI v 1. ) SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE SDN BHD 2. ) TEOH BOON THONG is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated June 23, 2025 (citation: pa-12b-21-09-2021). The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James.
Key issues: 7. Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary “plainly wrong” principle includes the following not-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here—.
What was the outcome of TEH KEAN HOOI v 1. ) SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE SDN BHD 2. ) TEOH BOON THONG?
TEH KEAN HOOI v 1. ) SIANG HENG PLASTIC WARE SDN BHD 2. ) TEOH BOON THONG is a High Court decision dated June 23, 2025. The case was heard by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. See the full judgment for details.
Statutes Cited
Civil Law Act 1956
s 28A
Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012
s 4
Cases Cited (30)
UK (1)
[2014] 1 WLR 2600
MY (29)
[1983] 2 CLJ 198 [1983] 2 MLJ 324 [1997] 1 MLRH 76 [1997] 2 AMR 1996 [1999] 1 MLRH 489 [1999] 2 AMR 1884 [1999] 3 CLJ 188 [1999] MLJU 126 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2004] 6 AMR 781 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2010] MLJU 2179 [2018] 1 AMR 517 [2018] 2 CLJ 641 [2018] 2 MLJ 177 [2018] AMEJ 1016 [2018] AMEJ 1410 [2018] AMEJ 1511 [2018] MLJU 1167 [2019] 11 MLJ 220 [2019] 5 CLJ 196 [2019] AMEJ 0792 [2019] MLJU 720 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2020] 8 AMR 227 [2023] AMEJ 3081 [2023] MLJU 3386
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-12b-21-09-2021)