Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2854
MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET JOHOR BAHRU
BINACHUAN SDN BHD LWN. AKS SEPAKAT SDN BHD
[Guaman No: JA-A72NCC-433-05/2020]
The burden of proof in civil cases lies with the plaintiff, to be established on a balance of probabilities, and the admissibility of documents can rely on exceptions under the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 – Section 90A – Contracts – The dispute arises from a claim for RM94,668.78 due to failure to pay for goods, with a counterclaim of RM32,098.21 by the defendant for insufficient delivery. The court emphasizes that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, which is established through various case laws. (Paras 6, 10, 18, 31)
(B) Burden of Proof – The standard is on a balance of probabilities, as distinguished in Mohd Ridzwan bin Abdul Razak v. Asmah bt Hj Mohd Nor, illustrating the obligation to demonstrate evidence clearly (Para 6).
(C) Admissibility of Documents – The court discusses the admissibility of documents under Section 90A of the Evidence Act, determining that a lack of compliance can be excused if other exceptions apply (Paras 8, 12).
(D) Resolution of Issues – The court finds that the defendant's claims for non-payment and counterclaims fail based on evidence presented, including invoices and delivery notes, affirming that the plaintiff’s documentation and actions substantiated their claims legally (Paras 18, 38).
(E) Result: The plaintiff’s claim of RM94,668.78 is granted, along with interest and costs.
PENGHAKIMAN
Praefatio
[1] Ini merupakan Alasan Penghakiman bagi rayuan defendan yang tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Majistret Sivil (1) Johor Bahru di akhir kes perbicaraan penuh pada 7 April 2022 di mana Mahkamah telah memutuskan membenarkan tuntutan Writ Saman plaintif dan mengenepikan Tuntutan Balas defendan. Rayuan ini adalah terhadap keseluruhan keputusan Mahkamah tersebut.
[2] Sepanjang perbicaraan pihak-pihak telah memanggil saksi-saksi berikut:
[3] Berikut adalah ekshibit-ekshibit yang dikemukakan oleh pihak- pihak:
Fakta Kes
[4] Dalam kes ini, defendan telah membuat satu Pesanan Pembelian daripada plaintif untuk menghantarserah batu 63mm Clean Ballast (Selepas ini dirujuk sebagai barang tersebut) bagi tempoh September 2016 hingga April 2017 untuk sebuah projek bernama Proposed Rehabilitation Upgrading Railway Track and Associated Works from Kempas Baru to Pasir Gudang Railway Station, Yards and Johor Port Line (Selepas ini dirujuk sebagai projek tersebut) yang mana melibatkan (3) lokasi iatu Kempas Station,Plentong Station dan Pasir Gudang Station.
[5] plaintif telah menuntut sebanyak RM94,668.78 terhadap defendan kerana dikatakan gagal membuat bayaran selepas penerimaan barang tersebut daripada plaintif.Defendan telah menafikan jumlah tuntutan tersebut sebaliknya membuat tuntutan balas terhadap plaintif sebanyak RM32,098.21 di atas kerugian yang ditanggung defendan kerana kegagalan plaintif untuk menghantarserah barang tersebut kepada defendan.
Beban Pembuktian
[6] Mahkamah hendaklah mempertimbang di mana beban pembuktian oleh pihak plaintif adalah di tahap imbangan kebarangkalian sepertimana digariskan menerusi kes Mohd Ridzwan bin Abdul Razak v. Asmah bt Hj Mohd Nor , [2016] 4 MLJ 282 di mana Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan di para 66:
"[66]... We start by stating the obvious ie the standard of proof in civil cases has traditionally been on a balance of probability, a standard that is certainly lower than that of criminal cases; nowhere near that of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt".
[7] Apakah dimaksudkan dengan imbangan kebarangkalian tersebut boleh dilihat menerusi keputusan kes Unsung Rasad v. PP, [2019] 4 MLJ 448, konsep beban pembuktian tersebut dijelaskan oleh Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim JCA (pada masa itu), mengadaptasi kes Inggeris seperti berikut:
"In the celebrated case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, Denning J (as he then was) said:
If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say 'we think it more probable than not' the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal it is not. That would invariably require that party involvedhaving to lead or adduce affirmative evidence to prove his case, as the court shall presume the absence of those circumstances, to reach a level of proof of at least 51% probability against his adverse party. We would cite the English case of Re B [2008] UKHL 35, where Lord Hoffman had used a mathematical analogy to illustrate what needed to be proven by a party desirous of having judgment entered in his favour, like so:
If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a 'fact in issue'), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of 0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of 1 is returned and the fact is treated as having happened".
[8] Berikut adalah isu-isu yang hendaklah dipertimbang oleh Mahkamah yang akan dihuraikan di bawah ini.
Isu-Isu Dibicarakan
(1) Kebolehterimaan masuk dokumen ID3 sebagai ekshibit
Dokumen ID3 adalah Penyata Akaun Terperinci bertarikh 14 September 2020 (Ikatan Dokumen
