GA Yee Furniture Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Dato' Khor Wooi Chen 2. ) Dato' Sri Chin Seak Huat
Catchwords
I am mindful that it is trite law that he who asserts must prove the facts alleged. As the Plaintiff asserts that the impugned payments were unauthorised, unjustified, and illegal, the legal and evidential burden rests on the Plaintiff to establish its case against the Defendants on a balance of probabilities throughout the trial, before the onus shifts 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." [22] In the present case, it is not disputed that all the impugned payments were received by the 1st Defendant and the two other individuals. The evidence further revealed that such payments were authorised and executed by the 2nd Defendant, who, at the material time, possessed the authority to approve the issuance of cheques and to appoint the 1st Defendant as a sales consultant, by virtue of his position as director and beneficial owner of the majority shareholding of the Plaintiff prior to the execution of the Dee.
Judges (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-12-01-2018)