Chapter 2.1 - Burden & Standard of Proof: Civil Cases Flashcards
BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
Overview
1) Burden of proof
2) Standard of proof
3) Meaning of balance of probabilities
4) Exception - proving particular facts under S.103
5) Exception - proving facts specially within knowledge under S.108
BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
Burden of proof
TNB v Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd:
- Plaintiff in civil suit bears the burden of proving its claim against the defendant.
BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
Standard of proof
PP v Yuvaraj:
- P will have the legal burden to prove the case on a balance of probabilities;
- D merely assumes the evidential burden to raise sufficient evidence;
- If P fails to give any evidence, his claim will automatically fail.
BURDEN & STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL CASES
Meaning of balance of probabilities
Miller v Minister of Pensions:
- probability that is not so high as required in a criminal case;
- standard of “more probable than not”;
- burden is not discharged if the probabilities are equal.
Recent - PP v Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd
PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103
Overview
1) Different level of balance of probabilities
2) General allegations of crime in civil cases
3) Allegations of forgery
4) Allegations of fraud
PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103
Different level of balance of probabilities
Teoh Meng Kee v PP:
- in civil trial, court may require the party to reach a different degree of the same standard of proof.
- examples:
1) Ku Jia Shiuen & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors: higher degree standard of proof for medical negligence cases.
2) Inas Faiqah Mohd Halim v Kerajaan Malaysia: lower degree of standard of proof in assessment for future loss or damage when there is certainty of such loss or damage in the future.
PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103
Immoral use of premise
Eastern Enterprises v Ong Choo Kim:
- higher degree of probability than is required in ordinary civil cases, but not as high as in criminal cases.
PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103
Allegation of forgery
Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan v Secure Plantations:
- Standard of proof for fraud & forgery in civil proceedings is on balance of probabilities,
- Finding of forgery can be made w/o handwriting expert.
- Court may consider totality of evidence to determine whether standard of proof has been reached.
PROVING PARTICULAR FACTS UNDER S.103
Allegation of fraud
1) First approach - Narayanan Chettiar v Official Assignee of High Court:
- fraud, whether alleged in civil or criminal proceedings, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Followed in Saminathan v Pappa, Datuk Jaginder Singh v Tara Rajaratnam.
2) Second approach - Lau Kee Ko & Anor v Paw Ngi Siu:
- P must prove a very high degree of probability when he alleges fraud.
- Followed in Lee You Sin v Chong Ngo Khoon.
3) Third approach - Ang Hiok Seng v Yim Yut Kiu:
- Distinguish between civil & criminal fraud;
- Civil fraud: on balance of probability;
- Criminal fraud: beyond reasonable doubt.
4) Most recent - Sinnaiyah & Sons v Damai Setia Sdn Bhd:
- May be proven on balance of probabilities.
- Adoption of criminal standard in Narayanan Chettiar v Official Assignee of HC is misinterpretation & blind adoption.
- ref. Re B Children: in law, there are only two standards, i.e. BRD or BOP.
PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106
Overview
1) Meaning of specially
2) Involvement of third party
3) res ipsa loquitur
PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106
Meaning of specially
PP v Lim Kwai Thean:
- it is an easy matter for the person;
- which the proof by the opposing party would present him with inordinate difficulties.
PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106
Involvement of third party
Sundram v Arjunam:
- if D sought to blame 3rd party, D should plead it specifically and not merely deny negligence.
PROVING FACTS SPECIALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE UNDER S.106
Res Ipsa Loquitur
1) Basis & principles of maxim - MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei:
- Where it may be impossible for P to show what precise acts or omission leading to his damage;
- i.e. when the cause of damages peculiarly lies within the means of knowledge of D;
- doctrine of RIL is invoked to raise presumption of negligence;
- it is then upon P to prove that he is not negligent.
2) Example - David Chelliah v Monorail Malaysia Technology:
- Court invoked the doctrine & held that ordinarily the wheel on the train does not fall off & hit the persons on the grounds below.
- Upon invoking the doctrine, P had made out prima facie case of negligence on part of D.
- D then had the legal burden to rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities.
