Back
2024 MarsdenLR 3344
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AKHTAR TAHIR, J
TROY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
NISSEN TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-649-10/2020]
Documents classified as secondary evidence require specific conditions for admissibility under the Evidence Act 1950, which the Plaintiff failed to satisfy.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 73A, 90A - Admissibility of documents - 10 documents in Part C of the Bundle of Documents ruled inadmissible due to lack of proper certification under s 90A and because scanned copies do not constitute primary evidence - The court emphasized that secondary documents cannot be accepted without satisfying specific conditions outlined in the Act. (Paras 10-22)
(B) The court noted that reliance on Rules of 2012 does not displace the provisions of the Evidence Act regarding admissibility. (Paras 18-19)
Facts of the case:
The Defendant objected to the admissibility of the Plaintiff's documents, primarily asserting that they were scanned copies lacking the necessary certification under the Evidence Act. The Plaintiff contended that the documents were admissible under the Rules of 2012.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the documents were secondary and not admissible due to failure to meet the conditions set by the Evidence Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the documents could be admitted as evidence despite being scanned copies without certification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that secondary documents require specific conditions to be admissible and that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate those conditions.
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00.
Introduction
[1] The Defendant objected to the admissibility of the Plaintiff's documents placed in part C of the Bundle of Documents filed in Court . The Defendant contended that the documents contravened the provisions of admissibility under the and therefore were inadmissible..
[2] The Court decided to determine the admissibility of the Part C of the Bundle of Documents before proceeding for the full trial of the matter. The Court decided this approach as there would be ramifications if the Court decided to rule in favor of the Defendants, since one of the documents disputed is the agreement upon which the Plaintiffs case is founded on.
Part C Documents
[3] The total number of documents which were objected contained in part C are 10 documents 7 documents are objected to as being scanned documents. This are the Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Plaintiff's tax invoices to the Defendant from 15 March 2017 to 8 December 2018, Plaintiff's letter to the Defendant dated 9 October 2019, RHB Bank Account Statement, Payment voucher and supporting documents, The Plaintiff's letter dated 14 February 2019 to JPJ, The Plaintiff's letter dated 20 March 2019 to Pejabat Ketua Setiausaha Negara.
[4] 1 document objected to is the Plaintiff's tabulation of Account Receivable summary for June 2016 until December 2018 which is derived from invoices which were not produced. Finally print out of e mail correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant in relation to a meeting dated 31 January 2019.
Submission Of The Parties
[5] The crux of the Defendant's objection against the admissibility of the 10 documents in Part C is that no certificates under s 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 were produced, which is a requirement for computer generated documents.
[6] Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 stipulates as follows:
(1) In any criminal or civil proceeding a document produced by a computer, or a statement contained in such document, shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein if the document was produced by the computer in the course of its ordinary use, whether or not the person tendering the same is the maker of such document or statement.
(2) For the purposes of this section it may be proved that a document was produced by a computer in the course of its ordinary use by tendering to the Court a certificate signed by a person who either before or after the production of the document by the computer is responsible for the management of the operation of that computer, or for the conduct of the activities for which that computer was used.
(3) (a) It shall be sufficient, in a certificate given under subsection (2), for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(b) A certificate given under subsection (2) shall be admissible in evidence as prima facie proof of all matters stated in it without proof of signature of the person who gave the certificate.
(4) Where a certificate is given under subsection (2), it shall be presumed that the computer referred to in the certificate was in good working order and was operating properly in all respects throughout the material part of the period during which the document was produced.
(5) A document shall be deemed to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or by means of any appropriate equipment, and whether or not there was any direct or indirect human intervention.
(6) A document produced by a computer, or a statement contained in such document, shall be admissible in evidence whether or not it was produced by the computer after the commencement of the criminal or civil proceeding or after the commencement of any investigation or inquiry, in relation to the criminal or civil proceeding or such investigation or inquiry, and any document so produced by a computer shall be deemed to be produced by the computer in the course of its ordinary use.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
