1. ) P. PONNAMAL A/P PONNIAH 2. ) PREMA A/P ACHU 3. ) DEBORAH ANN RODRIGO 4. ) Y.M.CHE ENGKU MAHIRAH BT ABDULLAH 5. ) GOH CHIANG BENG 6. ) ALEXANDER VINCENT 7. ) GEA BAN THONG 8. ) NG GUAT TIN 9. ) KOH KOCK KEANG 10. ) SUPRAMANIAM A/L S SHANMUGAM 11. ) HARITH BIN ABDUL HAMID 12. ) ISMAT BIN ABDUL RAUF 13. ) KOH KOK CHONG 14. ) GEA SEOK ENG 15. ) THANGAMUTHU A/L KARUPPIAH v 1. ) GOH HWAN HUA 2. ) I-SERVE ONLINE MALL SDN BHD 3. ) BRIGHT MOON VENTURE PLT 4. ) QA SMART PARTNERSHIP PLT 5. ) TRILLI...

wa-22ncc-606-11-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 September 2025 • WA-22NCC-606-11/2022 • 45 min read
16 cases cited (0 SG, 16 foreign)

Catchwords

the principles applicable when a defendant submits 'No case to Answer' can be distilled as follows-At the close of the plaintiffs' case, a defendant can opt not to call any witness for the defence but instead make a submission of 'No case to answer’;-Where the defence submits 'No case to answer', the trial judge must put the defence counsel to his election, namely, that if he elects not call evidence, he would stand or fall on his submissions; -The judge should refuse to make a ruling on a submission of 'No case to answer' unless the defence makes it clear that he does not intend to call any witness for the defence-For the purpose of testing whether there is a case to answer, all the evidence given must be presumed to be true-Adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant for failing to call any witnesses should the circumstances appropriately call for such an adverse inference-However, even if the plaintiff's evidence is presumed to be true and adverse inference is drawn, the burden of proof at all times is borne by the plaintiff on the balance of probabilities to establish his case against the defendant. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case and satisfy the court that his claim is well-founded before the court can grant judgment on his claim. The fact that the defendant has led no evidence or called no witnesses does not absolve the plaintiff from discharging his burden in law-two consequences that follow when a defendant refrained from giving evidence by choosing to elect no case to answer-The first consequence is the evidence given by the plaintiffs ought to be presumed to be true. If the plaintiffs’ evidence does not appear to be either inherently incredible or inherently improbable, it is the duty of the judge to accept the evidence as true in the absence of any evidence from the defendants going the other way-The second consequence is the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the absence of testimony from the defendants who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action-illegal deposit taking pursuant to section 137 (1) of the FSA 2013-the SAs and PFAs were entered into in breach of section 137(1) FSA 2013, section 270 of the FSA 2013 states that such contracts are not void. The plaintiffs can claim back their deposits from the 3rd,4th and 5th defendants-Acting as a single economic unit/lifting corporate veil-"...No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything-controlling mind-

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (13)

Chetan Jethwani & Company Firm KP Lu & Tan Firm Mathews Hun Lachimanan Firm Raj & Sach Firm Amanda Sonia Mathew Counsel Plaintiff Ava Geh Counsel Defendant Chetan Jethwani Counsel Defendant Jusstina Xaviaer Counsel Plaintiff Rajesh Nagarajan Counsel Plaintiff Reuben Choong Counsel Defendant Sach Preet Raj Singh Sohanpal Counsel Plaintiff Tina Francis Counsel Defendant Varunnath Viswanathan Counsel Defendant

Parties (20)

I-SERVE ONLINE MALL Sdn Bhd Defendant QA SMART PARTNERSHIP PLT Defendant TRILLION COVE HOLDINGS BERHAD Defendant Alexander Vincent Plaintiff Bright Moon Venture Plt Defendant Deborah Ann Rodrigo Plaintiff Gea Ban Thong Plaintiff Gea Seok Eng Plaintiff Goh Chiang Beng Plaintiff Goh Hwan Hua Defendant Harith bin Abdul Hamid Plaintiff Ismat bin Abdul Rauf Plaintiff Koh Kock Keang Plaintiff Koh Kok Chong Plaintiff Ng Guat Tin Plaintiff P. Ponnamal a/p Ponniah Plaintiff Prema a/p Achu Plaintiff Supramaniam a/l S Shanmugam Plaintiff Thangamuthu a/l Karuppiah Plaintiff Y.m.che Engku Mahirah bt Abdullah Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
s 24

Cases Cited (16)

UK (2)
[1956] 1 All ER 341 [2013] UKSC 34
MY (14)
[1996] 3 MLJ 533 [1997] 3 MLJ 693 [1997] 4 AMR 3744 [1997] 4 CLJ 509 [2005] MLJU 225 [2009] 6 MLJ 751 [2010] 1 CLJ 381 [2015] 1 MLJ 773 [2015] 2 AMR 124 [2015] 2 CLJ 1037 [2015] 3 MLJ 609 [2019] MLJU 1407 [2021] 3 MLJ 622 [2023] MLJU 2444

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-606-11-2022)