PROVEN RELIANCE MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. v Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
wa-12bncvc-133-11-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 11 May 2026 • WA-12BNCvC-133-11/2025 • 10 min read
Catchwords
Civil Procedure – Appeal – Appeal against decision of Sessions Court – Claim for refund of rental and utility deposits – Counterclaim for breach of tenancy obligations and repair costs – Whether appellate intervention justified Evidence – Burden of proof – Sections 101 and 102 Evidence Act 1950 – Deposit originally paid to separate corporate entity – Whether respondent proved appellant received, held or assumed liability for deposit – Failure to establish essential element of claim Contract – Tenancy Agreement – Successive tenancy arrangements – Schedule A of Tenancy Agreement 2015 – Contractual acknowledgment that deposit remained under possession of “Master Tenant” – Whether acknowledgment sufficient to establish actual receipt of funds or assumption of liability – Distinction between contractual acknowledgment and proof of legal liability Company Law – Separate legal personality – Deposit paid to different company within related corporate group – Whether liability automatically transferred to appellant – Requirement for proof of transfer of liability or receipt of funds Evidence – Documentary evidence – Audit reports – Accounting records – Whether audit reports constitute conclusive proof of actual receipt of monies absent supporting transactional evidence – Absence of bank records, receipts or transfer documents Judgment – Sufficiency of reasons – Failure of trial court to adequately analyse basis of liability – Whether finding founded upon actual receipt of deposit, contractual assumption of liability or commercial inference – Material omission in reasoning Appeal – Findings of fact – Principles governing appellate interference – “Plainly wrong” test – Lee Ing Chin v Gan Yook Chin – Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors – P’ng Hun Sun v Dato’ Yip Yee Foo – Whether findings on deposit claim sustainable Counterclaim – Appeal against dismissal – Alleged defects, repair costs and contractual breaches – Whether appellant demonstrated material misdirection, failure to consider relevant evidence or findings plainly wrong – Whether appellate court should re-evaluate factual findings of trial court Held: Appeal allowed in part. Sessions Court’s decision allowing respondent’s claim for refund of deposit set aside and respondent’s claim dismissed. Dismissal of appellant’s counterclaim affirmed. Costs of RM5,000.00 awarded to appellant.
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-12bncvc-133-11-2025)