SINNAIYAH & SONS SDN BHD vs DAMAI SETIA SDN BHD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 MarsdenLR 2387

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SINNAIYAH & SONS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DAMAI SETIA SDN BHD – Respondent

Table of Content
1. distinction between burden and standard of proof. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. overview of the contractual arrangement and disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. arguments presented by both parties concerning the standard of proof. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
4. clarification on the civil standard of proof for fraud. (Para 49 , 50)

Richard Malanjum CJSS:

Introduction:

[1] This court granted the appellant leave to appeal on 10 October 2013.

[2] There is only one leave question to consider which reads:

'Whether the Federal court should rely on the ratio set in Ang Hiok Seng v. Yim Yut Kiu , [1997] 2 MLJ 45 in determining the burden of proof in civil fraud?'

[3] At the outset we note that the leave question uses the term 'burden of proof in civil fraud'.

[4] There is of course a difference between the terms 'burden of proof' and 'standard of proof'.

[5] Briefly the former relates to the burden or obligation of proving a fact on the party who exerts the existence of any fact in issue and wishes the court to believe in its existence - ss 102 and 103 of the Evidence Act 1950 ('the Act'). The burden of proof of a party never shifts.

[6] The latter refers to 'the degree of persuas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 MarsdenLR 2387

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYASINNAIYAH & SONS SDN BHD – AppellantVersusDAMAI SETIA SDN BHD – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SINNAIYAH & SONS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
DAMAI SETIA SDN BHD – Respondent