Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1844
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SA ARCHITECTS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SAA ARCHITECTS PTE LTD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22IP-59-12/2022]
The court emphasized that introducing new documents after the closure of a case is prejudicial to the opposing party and undermines orderly case management.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1950 - Sections 136(1) and 138(4) - Application to adduce new documents and recall witness - Defendant's application to introduce new documents was rejected as they were deemed not relevant and discovered too late - The court emphasized the importance of orderly case management and the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff if the application were granted. (Paras 14-44)
(B) The court found the Defendant's explanation for the late discovery of documents dubious, asserting that the documents were in the Defendant's possession all along and should have been disclosed earlier. (Paras 24-28)
(C) The court ruled that admitting the new documents would severely prejudice the Plaintiff and disrupt the orderly management of the case. (Paras 35-37)
Findings of Court:
The Defendant failed to establish grounds for the admission of new documents and the recall of a witness, leading to the dismissal of the application with costs.
Issues: The main issues were whether the new documents should be admitted and whether the witness should be recalled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Defendant bore the burden of proof in justifying the introduction of new evidence, which it failed to meet, thus prioritizing case management and fairness to the Plaintiff.
Result: The Defendant's application was dismissed with costs of RM7,500.00.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over trademark ownership (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendant's application for new evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's analysis on admissibility of new documents (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 4. prejudice to plaintiff and administration of justice (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. conclusion on defendant's application (Para 42 , 43) |
The Defendant's Application
[1] This action was essentially a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the right to be registered as the owner of the following trademarks in Malaysia, which the Defendant had registered in its name in 202 and 2018 respectively.
[2] By the end of the second of the scheduled three-day trial of this action, the Plaintiff's sole witness, Low Mun Wai (PW1) and the Defendant's first witness, Edward D' Silva (DW1) had completed giving their evidence and had been released, and the Defendant's second witness, Toh Kok Kin (slated to be the last), had completed giving his evidence in chief and his cross-examination. The third day, this Court was informed at the end of day two, would just be for his re-examination, which Learned Counsel for the Defendant had estimated would not take more than an hour and a half.
[3] However, by the outset of the proceedings on the morning of that third day of trial, the Defendant had filed an application, inter alia:
(i) to adduce new evidence in the form of multiple documents (collectively, "the New Documents");
(ii) to recall DW1, to give further evidence; and
(iii) if it were allowed to adduce the New Documents and recall DW1 to give further evidence, that the Plaintiff be given leave to:
(a) recall its sole witness, Low Mun Wai (PW1); and
(b) cross-examine DW1.
("the Defendant's Application")
[4] Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff informed me that the Plaintiff was opposing the Defendant's Application, and both Counsel informed me that they were prepared to proceed with the hearing of it that morning itself. When Learned Counsel for the Defendant further confirmed that the Defendant's Application did not involve re-calling DW2 (or rather, DW2 giving any further evidence on the New Documents), I directed (and they concurred) that the Court would first complete the re-examination of DW2, release him as a witness, and then only hear the Defendant's Application.
DW2 Completed His testimony And I Heard The Defendant's Application
[5] I did that and then this Judgment contains my decision on the Defendant's Application and my reasons for deciding it in the way I did.
The Approach
[6] As prayer (1) of the Defendant's Application was to adduce the New Documents, and para 8(1) of the Defendant's sole affidavit in support of the Defendant's Application affirmed by Chan Chee Lun ("Chan"), a director of the Defendant ("Defendant's Affidavit") stated that the reason to recall DW1 was to give evidence on the New Documents, it made sense to first decide whether the Defendant should be allowed to adduce the New Documents. After all, if that was rejected, it would dispense with any need to recall DW1.
Whether The Defendant Should Be Allowed To Adduce The New Documents
The Defendant's Case For The New Documents
[7] In para 4 of the Defendant's Affidavit, Chan identified the New Documents as being:
(i) a document entitled "Proposed Industrial Development At Sungei Besi Kuala Lumpur for Wearne Brothers Limited - Preliminary Studies" consisting of 43 folios ("New Document 1");
(ii) a document entitled "Hill Resort Development For Gunung Ledang (Mount Ophir), Johor, West Malaysia" consisting of 35 folios ("New Document 2");
(iii) a document entitled "Proposed Development on Lot 838 Section 65 KTLD Kuching" consisting of 19 folios ("New Document 3");
(iv) a document entitled "Proposed Hotel, Serviced Apartments, retail, Recreational & Office Development on Lot 456, 465 & 706 - Miri, Sarawak" consisting of 11 folios ("N
