Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 86)

INTRODUCTION

[1]ÂÂThe plaintiff sought leave under O.40A Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012)

[2]ÂÂOn 31.01.2023, after perusing the cause papers and hearing the respective submission of counsels, I dismissed enclosure 86 with an order that costs of RM3,000.00 be paid to the defendant within 14 days from the date of this Order. The plaintiff is now appealing against that decision.

BRIEF FACTS

[3]ÂÂFrom the cause papers, the facts are:

3.1 The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for the repayment of the friendly loans she advanced to him on several occasions since 2013 (the cash loans).

3.2 On 25.04.2018:

3.2.1 The defendant signed and handed the plaintiff a written acknowledgement of the cash loan titled “Full & Final Settlement of Loan”, dated 25.04.2018 (the Letter of Acknowledgement).

3.2.2 The defendant signed the Letter of Acknowledgement in the presence of the plaintiff and a bank officer who was managing the plaintiff’s bank account; and

3.2.3 The defendant agreed to repay the plaintiff RM2.5 million by 25.05.2018. However, the defendant now disputes his signature on the Letter of Acknowledgment and claims he never signed it.

3.3 Under a Consent Order recorded on 11.08.2021 (exhibit ESL-1, enclosure 87):

3.3.1 The parties jointly agreed for a court-appointed expert to examine and analyse the defendant’s disputed signature on the Letter of Acknowledgement.

3.3.2 A Document Examiner from Jabatan Kimia Malaysia, Mr Teo Chee Hau, carried out the analysis and produced a report dated 27.01.2022 [the Jabatan Kimia Report (exhibit ESL-3, enclosure 87)]; and

3.3.3 The findings of the Jabatan Kimia Report inter-alia state that: “I am of the opinion that this questioned signature was probably not written by the writer of the specimens”).

3.4 Consequently, the plaintiff filed enclosure 86:

3.4.1 To seek twenty-five (25) original specimens of the defendant’s signature affixed by him in the ordinary course of business during the years 2017 to 2019 on various documents for examination; and

3.4.2 To appoint Mr Wong Kong Yong, a Forensic Document Examiner (Mr Wong), as the plaintiff’s expert to examine, analyse and determine the authorship and/or genuineness of the defendant’s signature on the Letter of Acknowledgment.

THE PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS

[4]ÂÂIn support of enclosure 86, the plaintiff argued:

4.1 Citing O.40 RC 2012

4.2 In opinion evidence, it is trite that it is an opinion and not of facts that require a well-explained process and reasons to support such opinion;

4.2.1 It is basic that the reasons supporting an opinion determine the expert’s credibility and the weight that may be given to the evidence.

4.3 In support, the plaintiff cited:

--McLaren Saksama (M) Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong · Bank Bhd Dr Shanmuganathan v Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai , FC:

“The evidence by a handwriting expert can never be conclusive because it is only opinion evidence. It is trite law that the principal object of expert evidence is merely to assist the Court to form its own opinion - refer to the Federal Court case of Dr Shanmuqanathan v Periasamy Sithambaram Pillai [199713 MLJ 61i [199712 CLJ 153.”

“Simply put, it is not safe for the Court to rely on a handwriting expert report if there is no concrete footing to support the finding made. Without them based on the cited authorities, SP6’s opinion is rendered as a bare expression of opinion without more, and as such, cannot be given any weight.”

Yoong Sze Fatt v Pengkalen Securities Sdn Bhd , CA, observed that:

“The courts have said, time and again, that a bare expression of opinion has no evidentiary value at all”.

Citing Sim Ah Song & Anor v Rex :

“The business of an expert witness is to draw upon the store of his knowledge and experience in order to explain some matter which his experience should qualify him to understand. He is entitled to express his opinion, which is the natural corollary of his explanation. But a bare expression of his o