HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LAI KIM WA – Appellant
Versus
KHIEW JU MENG & ORS – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the summary provided, here are the relevant paragraphs that discuss the role and credibility of commissioners for oaths, formatted with references in square brackets:
"The court examined evidence where a commissioner for oaths testified that the plaintiff affirmed a statutory declaration before him on a specific date, establishing his role in administering oaths and verifying affirmations." (!)
"The plaintiff denied signing the statutory declaration on the date claimed by the commissioner and presented evidence indicating he was elsewhere at that time, raising questions about the accuracy and reliability of the commissioner’s records." (!)
"The court emphasized that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff did not sign the declaration before the commissioner as asserted, highlighting the importance of verifying the procedures and records maintained by commissioners for oaths." (!)
"This case underscores the significance of the court scrutinizing the procedures followed by commissioners for oaths and the credibility of their testimony and records when assessing the authenticity of affidavits and affirmations." (!)
Please note that these paragraphs are paraphrased summaries based on the provided information, formatted as requested.
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] This judgment essentially concerns the issue of whether the plaintiff (Plaintiff) and first defendant (1st Defendant) had orally agreed that:
(1) all the shares in the second defendant company (2nd Defendant); and
(2) all the 2nd Defendant's assets
would be owned equally by the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant [Oral Agreement (2nd Defendant's Shares/Assets)].
[2] The dispute between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant has embroiled the 1st Defendant's wife, the third defendant (3rd Defendant). This case is interesting due to, among others, the following two reasons:
(1) there were conflicting expert opinions from Chinese interpreters regarding a Mandarin word used by the 1st Defendant in the telephone conversation between the 1st Defendant and Plaintiff; and
(2) after the court decided at the trial of this case (Trial) that the Oral Agreement (2nd Defendant's Shares/Assets) existed and had been breached by the 1st Defendant [1st Defendant's Breach (2nd Defendant's Shares/Assets)], in the assessment of damages [Assessment (Damages)] conducted under O 37 of the Rules of court 2012 (RC), the Plaintiff claimed for a total amount of RM13,350,025.80 as comp
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.