Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lee Soo Chew V Wang Fatt (Johore) SDN BHD & Ors

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    46 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Johore Bahru in Malaysia. The defendant had requested to inspect the plaintiff's premises with an expert before the trial to assess damage, but the plaintiff refused. The defendant then applied to the court for an order allowing inspection. The court denied the defendant's application. The court reasoned that a judge can only inspect premises after hearing oral testimony to understand the questions raised, not before. It also held that any inspection should be done with both parties present to avoid allegations of bias, and should occur during the trial as part of understanding evidence from witnesses.

    Original Description:

    kes

    Original Title

    Lee Soo Chew v Wang Fatt (Johore) Sdn Bhd & Ors

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Johore Bahru in Malaysia. The defendant had requested to inspect the plaintiff's premises with an expert before the trial to assess damage, but the plaintiff refused. The defendant then applied to the court for an order allowing inspection. The court denied the defendant's application. The court reasoned that a judge can only inspect premises after hearing oral testimony to understand the questions raised, not before. It also held that any inspection should be done with both parties present to avoid allegations of bias, and should occur during the trial as part of understanding evidence from witnesses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    46 views1 page

    Lee Soo Chew V Wang Fatt (Johore) SDN BHD & Ors

    Uploaded by

    Nur Aliah
    This document summarizes a court case from the High Court of Johore Bahru in Malaysia. The defendant had requested to inspect the plaintiff's premises with an expert before the trial to assess damage, but the plaintiff refused. The defendant then applied to the court for an order allowing inspection. The court denied the defendant's application. The court reasoned that a judge can only inspect premises after hearing oral testimony to understand the questions raised, not before. It also held that any inspection should be done with both parties present to avoid allegations of bias, and should occur during the trial as part of understanding evidence from witnesses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    LEE SOO CHEW v WANG FATT (JOHORE) SDN BHD & ORS

    [1996] 4 MLJ 1
    HIGH
    COURT
    (JOHOR BAHRU)
    Summary of Facts
    ABDUL MALIK ISHAK J
    1. On 28 November 1995, the 1st defendants solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs solicitors
    requesting access to the plaintiffs premises by an expert for an inspection to assess
    damage to the premises. The request was refused.
    2. On 16 December 1995, the 1st defendant applied to the court seeking an order that the
    plaintiff give access to the premises so as to allow the trial judge and parties involved
    to inspect them.
    3. The trial of the main action was fixed for 8 and 9 January 1996 and this application
    was heard on 1 January 1996.
    Issue:
    1. Whetherthetrialjudgewasempoweredtovisittheplaintiffspremisesbeforethe
    hearingofthemainsuit?
    2. Whetherbothpartiesshouldbepresentduringinspection?
    Theapplicationwasnotonlywithoutprecedent,itwas
    Plaintiff Arguments
    also without any basis. The proper time for the 1st
    defendantsexperttogaugethedamagetotheplaintiffs
    premiseswouldbeinearly1984and,ifatall,bythe
    latest it should be on 30 September 1989 when the
    summonsfordirectionswasfiled.
    Theinspectionwasmaterialandthereportbyanexpert
    Defendant Arguments
    oftheplaintiffspremiseswoulddeterminethewhole
    issue.
    Defendantsapplicationdismissed.
    Courts decision and reasoning
    1. AninspectionbyajudgepursuanttoO35r5is
    solely for the purpose of enabling the judge to
    understand the questions raised and thereafter to
    follow and apply the relevant and admissible
    evidence.Thejudgemayinspectafterrecordingthe
    evidence(oraltestimonyofthewitness),notbefore.
    2. Itwasappropriatethatthetrialjudgeshouldvisitthe
    locusinquointhepresenceofbothpartiesandthis
    wasthebestwaytoavoidanyallegationofbias.
    3. Aninspectionbyatrialjudgeshouldbemadewhen
    the trial is in progress and the parties are present
    duringthevisittothelocusinquo.Theviewcould
    betreatedasrealevidence,whichenabledthecourt
    tobetterunderstandtheevidencewhichhadalready
    beengivenbywitnesses.

    You might also like