This case underscores the enforceability of statutory copyright protections and related torts, emphasizing the severity of evidence credibility in judicial determinations.

(2) the plaintiff 's learned counsel, Ms Cindy Goh Joo Seong (Ms Goh) applied for leave of court to cross-examine Puan Suryawati under s 154 of the Evidence Act 1950 ( EA ). Mr Suaran Singh (Mr Suaran), the defendants' learned counsel, objected to this application. I exercised my discretion under s 154 and granted leave for Ms Goh to cross-examine her own witness because Puan Suryawati initially testified on 7 November 2016 that she had seen exh P2 (original) on 13 October 2016. During Puan Suryawati's recall on 6 December 2016, she gave evidence that she could not remember whether she had examined exh P2 or exh P14 on 13 October 2016. There is therefore a material contradiction in Puan Suryawati's evidence in respect of which document (exh P2 or exh P14) had been examined by her on 13 October 2016. I rely on the following judgment of Siti Norma Yaakob J (as she then was) in the High court case of S Lourdenadin v. M Ratnavale Nee Annalakshmi Vattivelu & Anor, [1986] CLJ (Rep) 481, at p 514:

"Our s 154 is in pari materia with s 154 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the case of Amathayaramal v. The Official Assignee, High court Madras [1933] IC 629 provides the following guidelines how this discretion can be exercised.

(1) Before the procedure can be adopted, the party wishing to cross-examine its own witness, must formally ask and obtain the court's permission.

(2) It is not necessary that the witness should first of all be determined to be hostile as in the law and practice in England.

(3) Although s 154 gives the court unfettered discretion, it ought not to exercise its discretion unless during the examination-in-chief of the witness something happens which make it necessary for facts to be got from the witness by means of cross-examination."

[Emphasis Added]

I am of the view that the court may exercise its discretion under s 154 EA to grant leave for a party to cross-examine his or her own witness if it is necessary for that party to elicit the truth from the witness by way of cross-examination regarding a "fact in issue" (as defined in s 3 ) and/or a "relevant fact" (construed in s 3 to be a relevant fact as provided in ); and

(3) when Ms Goh suggested to Puan Suryawati that it was impossible for her to be unsure whether she had inspected exh P2 or exh P14, she replied that she did not know. Puan Suryawati added that she was not sure whether the Revenue Stamp was genuine or not. She even admitted that she did not properly examine the document on 13 October 2016.

[10] Puan Rozana is an Assistant Legal Officer with Malaysia Department of Insolvency (MDI). It is not disputed that the 1st defendant is an undischarged bankrupt since December 2015. Puan Rozana gave the following evidence during examination-in-chief:

(1) The 1st defendant handed over the original copy of the Alleged License Agreement to MDI in his application for sanction of the Director General of Insolvency (DGI) for the 1st defendant's Counterclaim (s 38(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 requires DGI's sanction for the 1st defendant's Counterclaim);

(2) The 1st defendant sent two emails dated 12 October 2016 and 17 October 2016 (exhs P7 and P8 respectively) to MDI which requested MDI to return the original copy of the Alleged License Agreement to the 1st defendant so as to enable the 1st defendant to use that document in this case; and

(3) Puan Rozana returned the original copy of the Alleged License Agreement to the 1st defendant on 18 October 2016 and such a fact was evidenced in MDI's letter dated 18 October 2016 signed by Puan Rozana and acknowledged by the 1st defendant (exh P9).

[11] In this case, the 1st defendant relied on a screenshot from his notebook "MacBook Air" (the 1st defendant's Notebook) to prove that he had created the 1st defendant's System on certain dates (Timestamps) and the plaintiff had therefore infringed his copyright in his work regarding the 1st defendant's System. The defendants had adduced expert evidence from Encik Shukri bin Ot