AT GLOVE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) HAI HONG CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) P'NG SIM GUAN 3. ) P'NG LAI HENG 4. ) HAI HONG HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) AARON KHOO TENG SOON

pa-22ncc-12-04-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 21 April 2025 • PA-22NCC-12-04/2021 • 25 min read
14 cases cited (0 SG, 14 foreign)

Catchwords

Having heard the submissions of both parties and considered the agreed issues, I am of the view that the main issue for determination is whether the SSA was validly terminated by the Plaintiff. The other related issues shall be addressed as and when necessary, in the course of this judgment. At the outset, I am mindful of the trite principle that he who asserts must prove. In this regard, the Plaintiff bears the legal and evidential burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case against the Defendants. Only upon discharging this burden does the onus shift to the Defendants to establish their defence. In the case of Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy s/o Sithambaram Pillai [1997] 2 CLJ 153; [1997] 3 MLJ 61, the Federal Court held: "Sections 101, 102, 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 deal with the burden of proof. Under s. 101, it is provided that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Under s. 102 the burden of proof lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Under s. 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Under s. 106, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him".

Judges (1)

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (6)

Chong Kheng Hoe Firm Lee & Poh Partnership Firm Chan Kheng Hoe Counsel Plaintiff Lau Zhong Yan Counsel Defendant Samantha Au Yong Counsel Defendant Wong Sheng Wei Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (6)

AT GLOVE ENGINEERING Sdn Bhd Plaintiff HAI HONG CAPITAL Sdn Bhd Defendant HAI HONG HOLDINGS Sdn Bhd Defendant Aaron Khoo Teng Soon Defendant P'ng Lai Heng Defendant P'ng Sim Guan Defendant

Case Significance

AT GLOVE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) HAI HONG CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) P'NG SIM GU... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated April 21, 2025 (citation: pa-22ncc-12-04-2021). The case was decided by Rozana binti Ali Yusoff.

What was the outcome of AT GLOVE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) HAI HONG CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) P'NG SIM GU...?

AT GLOVE ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) HAI HONG CAPITAL SDN BHD 2. ) P'NG SIM GU... is a High Court decision dated April 21, 2025. The case was heard by Rozana binti Ali Yusoff. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (14)

MY (14)
[1997] 2 CLJ 153 [1997] 3 MLJ 61 [2008] 4 CLJ 217 [2008] 5 MLJ 157 [2009] 1 CLJ 786 [2009] 2 AMR 50 [2009] 6 CLJ 22 [2009] 6 MLJ 839 [2012] 10 CLJ 159 [2013] 4 CLJ 653 [2016] 1 CLJ 177 [2022] 1 MLJ 701 [2022] 2 AMR 525 [2022] 2 CLJ 1

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-22ncc-12-04-2021)