Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
YOON HWA (1983) SDN BHD vs MINES RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"]: Justice Wong Kian Kheong J highlighted that parties should not unilaterally redact or exhibit documents in affidavits without court leave, and redacted documents cannot be relied upon unless properly permitted.Courts discourage the practice of exhibiting documents in reply to prevent the opposing party from replying, as it may lead to procedural unfairness.
Redaction of Documents Redaction of documents exhibited in affidavits must be done with court approval. Unilateral redactions without leave are not permissible, and reliance on redacted documents without proper court approval can lead to adverse inferences or dismissal of reliance on such documents.References:
["
YOON HWA (1983) SDN BHD vs MINES RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"]: Justice Wong emphasized that redactions should not be unilateral and must be approved by court; otherwise, no adverse inference should be drawn against the opposing party for not replying to redacted parts.Failure to Reply or File Affidavits in Response Plaintiffs or parties who do not file affidavits in reply or respond to affidavits in support may be deemed to have accepted the allegations or evidence presented. The courts have held that failure to respond can amount to admission of the facts asserted.References:
PENG CHOONG LENG vs KUA BOON HAUN (ENCL 51) - High Court Malaya Shah Alam
"]: The court noted that failure to reply to affidavits may signify acceptance of the opposing party’s assertions.["
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD vs SANSHAN CAPITAL SDN BHD & ORS (ENCL 7) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"]: The court observed that non-reply to affidavits can be construed as acceptance of the facts therein.Raising Triable Issues When parties claim disputes over documents, courts assess whether the issues are genuine and whether the documents are properly exhibited and verified. Disputes over whether documents were received or signed are common grounds for raising triable issues.References:
["
NORDIN SIDIN vs MOHD KHALID NORDIN ORS (ENCL 39) - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru
"], ["MOHD HAFIS JOHAN vs MOHAMED KHALED NORDIN & ORS (ENCL 28) - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru
"], ["MARIA ABDUL NASSIR vs MOHD KHALID NORDIN & ORS (ENCL 38) - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru
"]: Courts scrutinize whether documents are properly exhibited and whether the parties have genuinely disputed their authenticity or receipt, influencing whether triable issues are raised.Procedural Law and Evidence Procedural rules are not to be used to frustrate justice; unverified pleadings or improper reliance on documents can undermine the process. Proper verification and adherence to procedural rules are essential for documents to be relied upon as evidence.References:
Malaysian law generally discourages the practice of exhibiting documents solely in reply to prevent the opposing party from responding. Redactions must be approved by the court, and unilateral redactions are not permitted. Parties are expected to exhibit all relevant documents in their initial affidavits; failure to do so may lead to adverse inferences. Courts scrutinize whether documents are properly exhibited, verified, and whether disputes over them are genuine. Using affidavits in a manner that restricts the opposing party's right to reply or introduces documents late in the process may be challenged as an abuse of process or procedural unfairness. Overall, adherence to procedural rules and fairness in document disclosure are paramount in Malaysian civil proceedings.
In Malaysian litigation, affidavits play a pivotal role as that form the backbone of evidence in applications like . A common question arises: Under Malaysian law, what is the scope of an ? Specifically, can an exhibit documents that were supposed to be exhibited in the ? This issue is critical in ensuring and preventing manipulation of evidence.
This blog post delves into the procedural rules, case law precedents, and practical implications, drawing from key Malaysian judgments. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Affidavits are used extensively in , particularly under (ROC 2012) for summary judgment. The initiates the application, laying out the facts and exhibiting supporting documents to demonstrate no exist. EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD vs SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2023)
The (or ) responds to the supporting affidavit, aiming to raise or rebut claims. Its scope is generally limited to addressing matters raised in the , rather than introducing entirely new evidence. However, courts have allowed certain exhibits in reply affidavits under specific circumstances, provided they are relevant and not manipulative. 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240
As noted in general principles, affidavits must be truthful and accurate, serving as the for claims or defenses. Manipulating exhibits—such as suppressing facts or affirming falsehoods—undermines this integrity and can lead to severe consequences. EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD vs SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2023)
Under , the respondent may file an within 14 days, stating why judgment should not be entered. This affidavit typically verifies the defense and exhibits documents to support . But can it include documents that should have been in the ?
Generally, no. The should contain . Introducing key documents in reply that were available earlier may be viewed as tactical delay or . Courts expect parties to present their best case upfront. However, reply affidavits can exhibit:- Documents directly rebutting the support affidavit's claims.- Newly discovered evidence (if genuine).- Clarifications or further details on existing issues.
In one case, the court noted the defendant ought to have taken the opportunity to file a further to provide evidence to support the Defendant's allegations... Submissions in that two invoices bearing numbers 34527 and 34538 ('Invoice Nos 34527 and 34538') stated in para 5(b) of the Plaintiff's (encl 15)—highlighting that reply affidavits can reference or exhibit responsive documents like invoices not previously detailed.
Malaysian courts scrutinize exhibits in reply affidavits closely, especially in summary judgment applications:
Exhibit Relevance in Reply: In a debt recovery suit, letters of offer were duly exhibited to the Plaintiff's , but the First Defendant's (affirmed by Chan Eng Leong) and Plaintiff's subsequent reply addressed additional documents. This shows reply affidavits can exhibit responsive materials without necessarily being barred, provided they raise genuine .
No from Late Exhibits: Where a plaintiff failed to exhibit key documents earlier, courts dismissed unsubstantiated claims in reply. For instance, What remained undeniable and undisputed was the fact that the plaintiff had signed the following documents (exhibited respectively as MHS1-MSH4 to the 4th defendant's Affidavit-In-Support)—emphasizing that reply affidavits must not contradict clear support evidence without strong backing. Summary judgment was granted as no triable defense was shown.
Manipulation Risks: Deliberate omission or late exhibition can be seen as manipulation. In a notable case, an suppressed material facts, such as higher authorities rejecting a policy change, misleading the court. The deponent was accused of affirming a false affidavit with no , constituting . 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240
Further, courts have penalized false affirmations, noting officers do not enjoy special privileges and must adhere strictly to truthful affidavits. 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240
requires the to exhibit documents making the case clear and concise. Reply affidavits under rule 7 should not ambush with withheld evidence. Breaches may lead to:- Striking out the affidavit.- Costs orders.- .
In banking disputes, defendants' reply affidavits claiming (e.g., due to freezing orders) failed when exhibits did not establish genuine defenses, reinforcing that obligations persist despite external issues.
Exhibiting documents in reply that belong in support can invite challenges:- : Strategic withholding distorts facts and hinders opposition. 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240- : Suppression or falsification undermines justice. EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD vs SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2023)- : Knowingly false exhibits attract charges.
Courts respond sternly, as in cases dismissing manipulated affidavits and awarding summary judgment.
To avoid pitfalls:1. Exhibit Comprehensively in Support: Include all key documents upfront.2. Limit Reply to Rebuttals: Use exhibits only for direct responses; seek leave for new evidence.3. Ensure Truthfulness: Verify facts to prevent risks.4. File Further Affidavits if Needed: Courts may allow additional replies for genuine issues.
The scope of an in Malaysian law is primarily responsive, allowing exhibits that rebut the but not as a substitute for . Late exhibition of supposed support documents risks dismissal as manipulative or abusive, as seen in precedents emphasizing affidavit integrity. 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD vs SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2023)
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize full disclosure in the .- Reply affidavits may exhibit rebuttal documents but face scrutiny.
- Manipulation leads to sanctions, contempt, or .- Always uphold truthfulness to maintain judicial fairness.
For tailored advice, engage a Malaysian legal professional. Stay informed on ROC 2012 updates to navigate affidavits effectively.
Sources:- EMPIRE HOLDINGS LTD vs SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur (2023)1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 240
#MalaysianLaw, #AffidavitReply, #LegalMalaysia
iv) Other Grounds [49] The plaintiff asserted that the documents exhibited by D4 in its affidavit in support and which have been redacted cannot be relied upon. These documents are: a. ... The party opposing the Redaction Application is not entitled to inspect the unredacted document, unless permitted by the applicant in the Redactio....
ought to have taken the opportunity to file a further affidavit in reply to provide evidence to support the Defendant's allegations. ... Submissions in that two invoices bearing numbers 34527 and 34538 ("Invoice Nos 34527 and 34538") stated in para 5(b) of the Plaintiff's Affidavit In Reply (encl 15) were not stated in the Statement of Claim and the Plaintiff's Affidavit#HL_END....
Whether the Plaintiff's dispute on the documents raised triable issues [13] In attempting to raise a triable issue, the Plaintiff claimed that he had not received Annexure D of the Surat Tawaran Pembiayaan Perniagaan MARA (exhibited as MSH1 to the Fourth Defendant's Affidavit-In-Support ... [16] What remained undeniable and undisputed was the fact that the Plaintif had signed the following do....
[16] What remained undeniable and undisputed was the fact that the plaintif had signed the following documents (exhibited respectively as MHS1-MSH4 to the 4th defendant's Affidavit-In-Support affirmed by the Deputy Director (Management Services), one Mohd Shazwanul Hakim bin Ismail, dated ... [13] In attempting to raise a triable issue, the plaintiff claimed that she had not received Annexure D of the S....
Whether The Plaintiff's Dispute On The Documents Raised Triable Issues [13] In attempting to raise a triable issue, the Plaintiff claimed that he had not received Annexure D of the Surat Tawaran Pembiayaan Perniagaan MARA (exhibited as MSH1 to the Fourth Defendant's Affidavit-In-Support ... [16] What remained undeniable and undisputed was the fact that the Plaintif had signed the following doc....
To date the Plaintiff has not personally filed any Affidavit in Reply to the Defendant's Affidavit in Support preferring to rely on the solicitors said Affidavit in Reply dated 30 November 2020. ... [38] The Plaintiff has chosen not to reply to the Defendant's denial of the claim as well as the various averments as listed in the prev....
in support of which exhibited the Judgment in Default. ... All the 3rd Defendant said in his affidavit was he did not not have knowledge of the Writ and did not receive it (para 5 of the 3rd Defendant's affidavit in support - encl 8). ... The Plaintiff's evidence on the service of the Writ in para 5 of the Plaintiff's affidavit in #HL....
It cannot be said that these documents are filed by plaintiff to fill up lacuna. ... A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. [See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. (AIR 1998 SC 1827)]. ... (4....
Whether The Plaintiff's Dispute On The Documents Raised Triable Issues [13] In attempting to raise a triable issue, the Plaintiff claimed that she had not received Annexure D of the Surat Tawaran Pembiayaan Perniagaan MARA (exhibited as MSH1 to the Fourth Defendant's Affidavit-In-Support ... [16] What remained undeniable and undisputed was the fact that the Plaintif had signed the following do....
All such letters of offer have been duly exhibited to the Plaintiff's affidavit in support. ... ) First Defendant's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Chan Eng Leong on 29th January 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "D1's Affidavit in Reply "); and viii) Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Gan Khong Min on 11th February 2021 (herein....
The defence, in support of its case, did not produce any evidence but exhibited seven documents. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 21 witnesses and also exhibited 14 documents.
Therefore, the documents which have been exhibited in the affidavit by way of evidence do not have a corresponding marking in the documents which have been so exhibited. I am accordingly referring to these exhibited documents as per the exhibit numbers given in the affidavit by way of evidence of the parties though concerned documents specifically do not bear the exhibit marks. (v) Legal Notice dated 24.7.2006 by the plaintiff to defendant nos. I may note that unfortunately t....
The petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavit as well as additional affidavit to point out that on account of non-joining of duties by the candidates, 208 vacancies remained unfilled and so long as all the vacancies from the select list were filled in, no further recruitment could have been initiated for such vacancies. 4. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply, and two further affidavit in reply opposing the petition.
After hearing both the parties, learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman and held that as per record of the case, the workman has established that there is relationship of servant and master in between the workman and petitioner Corporation because the Welfare Samiti, as per agreement, sponsored name of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor and this fact is not disputed by the Corporation. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation,....
In reply to the show cause notice, the contemnor has not denied that he himself sent the complaint to His Excellency-the Governor. In his subsequent applications, he has made allegations against his own counsel provided to him through Legal Aid that they were counseling him to tender apology without his fault. He did not even care to file affidavit in support of his reply.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
