The court affirmed that expert evidence must be substantial, with adequate reasoning, and the failure to object timely to an expert's report undermines further expert appointment requests.

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

(Enclosure 86)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff sought leave under O 40A Rules of 2012 (RC 2012) to appoint Mr Wong Kong Yong, a Forensic Document Examiner, as an expert to examine, analyse and determine the authorship and/or genuineness of the defendant's signature in a Letter of Acknowledgment dated 25 April 2018 (Annexure A) and to provide a report of his findings and other related prayers.

[2] On 31 January 2023, after perusing the cause papers and hearing the respective submission of counsels, I dismissed encl 86 with an order that costs of RM3,000.00 be paid to the defendant within 14 days from the date of this Order. The plaintiff is now appealing against that decision.

Brief Facts

[3] From the cause papers, the facts are:

3.1 The plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the repayment of the friendly loans she advanced to him on several occasions since 2013 (the cash loans).

3.2 On 25 April 2018:

3.2.1 The defendant signed and handed the plaintiff a written acknowledgement of the cash loan titled "Full & Final Settlement of Loan", dated 25 April 2018 (the Letter of Acknowledgement).

3.2.2 The defendant signed the Letter of Acknowledgement in the presence of the plaintiff and a bank officer who was managing the plaintiff's bank account; and

3.2.3 The defendant agreed to repay the plaintiff RM2.5 million by 25 May 2018. However, the defendant now disputes his signature on the Letter of Acknowledgment and claims he never signed it.

3.3 Under a Consent Order recorded on 11 August 2021 (exhibit ESL-1, Encl 87):

3.3.1 The parties jointly agreed for a Court-appointed expert to examine and analyse the defendant's disputed signature on the Letter of Acknowledgement.

3.3.2 A Document Examiner from Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Mr Teo Chee Hau, carried out the analysis and produced a report dated 27 January 2022 [the Jabatan Kimia Report (exhibit ESL-3, Encl 87)]; and

3.3.3 The findings of the Jabatan Kimia Report inter-alia state that: "I am of the opinion that this questioned signature was probably not written by the writer of the specimens").

3.4 Consequently, the plaintiff filed encl 86:

3.4.1 To seek twenty-five (25) original specimens of the defendant's signature affixed by him in the ordinary course of business during the years 2017 to 2019 on various documents for examination; and

3.4.2 To appoint Mr Wong Kong Yong, a Forensic Document Examiner (Mr Wong), as the plaintiff's expert to examine, analyse and determine the authorship and/or genuineness of the defendant's signature on the Letter of Acknowledgment.

The Plaintiff's Submissions

[4] In support of encl 86, the plaintiff argued:

4.1 Citing O 40 RC 2012, it allows the plaintiff to call one expert witness to give evidence on the question involving the authorship and/or the genuineness of the defendant's signature without requiring the leave of Court, provided that the plaintiff gives notice to the defendant within a reasonable time before the trial.

4.2 In opinion evidence, it is trite that it is an opinion and not of facts that require a well-explained process and reasons to support such opinion;

4.2.1 It is basic that the reasons supporting an opinion determine the expert's credibility and the weight that may be given to the evidence.

4.3 In support, the plaintiff cited:

-McLaren Saksama (M) Sdn Bhd v. Hong Leong Bank Bhd, 2026 MarsdenLR 264 that referred to and followed Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai, [1997] 3 MLJ 61, FC:

"The evidence by a handwriting expert can never be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence. It is trite law that the principal object of expert evidence is merely to assist the Court to form its own opinion - refer to the Federal Court case of Dr Shanmuganathan v. Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai, [1997] 3 MLJ 61"

"Simply put, it is not safe for the Court to rely on a handwriting expert report if there is no concrete footing to support the finding made. Without them based on the cited authorities, SP6's opinion is rendere