PANNIRSELVAM A/L VELU v DANA VALLEN A/L ARUMUGAM
3 cases cited
(0 SG, 3 foreign)
Catchwords
I am guided by the trite law that the appellate court should not interfere with factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was “plainly wrong” or where there was no and/or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence. In the case of NG HOO KUI & ANOR v. WENDY TAN LEE PENG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATES OF TAN EWE KWANG, DECEASED & ORS [2020] 10 CLJ 1, the Federal Court held as follows: - “An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless satisfied that he was plainly wrong. The ‘plainly wrong’ test operates on the principle that the trial court has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses on their evidence as opposed to the appellate court that acts on the printed records. In the UK, the test adopted by the appellate courts is not whether the higher courts feels that it would have reached a different conclusion on the same fact as the trial court, but whether or not the decision by the lower court on findings of fact was reasonable. If the trial judge’s decision can be reasonably explained and justified, then the appellate courts should refrain from intervention.
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
PANNIRSELVAM A/L VELU v DANA VALLEN A/L ARUMUGAM is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated March 2, 2025 (citation: pa-12b-40-10-2024). The case was decided by Rozana binti Ali Yusoff.
What was the outcome of PANNIRSELVAM A/L VELU v DANA VALLEN A/L ARUMUGAM?
PANNIRSELVAM A/L VELU v DANA VALLEN A/L ARUMUGAM is a High Court decision dated March 2, 2025. The case was heard by Rozana binti Ali Yusoff. See the full judgment for details.
Cases Cited (3)
MY (3)
[1993] 2 CLJ 464 [2009] MLJU 1840 [2020] 10 CLJ 1
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-12b-40-10-2024)