1. ) GUNASEKAR A/L MARIAPPAN 2. ) PHILIP PHANG KIN MING v 1. ) CHIN BOON LONG 2. ) KENNY KHOW CHUAN WAH 3. ) CHONG KOON MENG 4. ) MMAG HOLDINGS BERHAD 5. ) M JETS INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD 6. ) SHANMUGANANTHAN A/L RATNAM 7. ) SAYSU A/L S. MICHAEL 8. ) ANTON ALEX SCHUBERT 9. ) JT AEROTECH SOLUTIONS SDN BHD

wa-22ncc-474-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 14 April 2026 • WA-22NCC-474-07/2023 • 17 min read

5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Application to give evidence by way of remote communication technology-The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction 2/2025 dated 13-11-2025-Section 15A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 which empowers the Courts to conduct proceedings via a live video link or other modes of electronic communication-Order 33A of the Rules of Court 2012-The Chief Justice’s Practice Direction 1/2021 dated 08-01- 2021-Whether an application for evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology is by way of a letter or a Notice of Application supported by an affidavit-Whether the reasons advanced by Victor Chin are acceptable to the Court to grant his request for his evidence to be given by way of remote communication technology-Order 33A rule 2(1) ROC 2012 gives power to the Court to direct a hearing to be conducted by way of remote communication technology-Order 33A rule 2(2) ROC 2012 further states a party can make an application to the Court to direct a hearing to be conducted by way of remote communication technology-The 2025 RCT PD states the application is by way of a written application-paragraph 2(e) of Attachment A2 of the 2025 RCT PD-This paragraph is applicable only to a party who wishes to attend a proceeding to be conducted using the video platform. It is not applicable to a party or witness who wishes to apply to give evidence by way of remote communication technology-The 2025 RCT PD at paragraph 6 states the application to give evidence by way of remote communication technology is by a written application. It does not say it is by way of a letter unlike paragraph 2(e) of Attachment A2 of the 2025 RCT PD which expressly said that the application is by way of a letter. This surely must mean the ‘written application’ is a Notice of application supported by an affidavit. The applicant must swear an affidavit to aver to grounds to support his application. It is only on sworn evidence by the applicant that the Court can rely on-Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d) of the ROC 2012 requires the Court to be satisfied that sufficient administrative and technical facilities and arrangements are made at the place where the person is to give evidence-Thus, Order 33 A rule 3(2)(d) of the ROC 2012 requires the specific location from which a party intends to log in must be clearly disclosed and that it is insufficient to merely state a general location or country-the courts cannot condone situations where individuals manipulate or abuse the legal system to their own advantage to avoid prosecution and thus undermines the proper administration of justice. Such instances would be when these individuals concerned apply to Court to testify via zoom to avoid arrest if they return to the country to testify in Court physically-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (15)

Alex Tan Chie Sian Firm Alvin Tang Law Office Firm Eric Tan Firm KH Wong & Co Firm S G Lingam & Co. Firm Alex De Silva Counsel Plaintiff Alex Tan Chie Sian Counsel Defendant Alvin Lau Lee Jie Counsel Defendant Chin Jia Yi Counsel Defendant Eric Tan Choon Heong Counsel Defendant Kang Zhen Leong Counsel Plaintiff Marvyn Lingam Counsel Defendant Ng Jing Yi Counsel Defendant Teo Ju-li Counsel Plaintiff Wong Kah Hui Counsel Defendant

Parties (11)

JT AEROTECH SOLUTIONS Sdn Bhd Defendant M JETS INTERNATIONAL Sdn Bhd Defendant MMAG HOLDINGS BERHAD Defendant Anton Alex Schubert Defendant Chin Boon Long Defendant Chong Koon Meng Defendant Gunasekar a/l Mariappan Plaintiff Kenny Khow Chuan Wah Defendant Philip Phang Kin Ming Plaintiff Saysu a/l S. Michael Defendant Shanmugananthan a/l Ratnam Defendant

Statutes Cited

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (5)

UK (1)

[2005] UKHL 10

AU (1)

[2016] FCAFC 18

MY (3)

[2022] MLJU 591 [2023] 4 MLJ 792 [2023] 7 CLJ 825

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-474-07-2023)