Ahmad Rubil Bin Ahmad v Minda Muhibah Sdn Bhd (W-02(NCvC)(W)-1172-07/2023)

AHMAD RUBIL BIN AHMAD

MAZAWATI OSMAN

LOW KOE SEI

KOH MEI LENG

ABDUL MALEK BIN AHMAD ZAINI

HAIRONI BINTI RAFFAIEE

CHONG SUN CHAN 20

TONG YAP LAN

SYARIFAH ALIZA BINTI SYED AZAUDDIN

10.JURAIMI AZAHAR BIN TAHARIM 29/07/2025 15:41:28 W-02(NCvC)(W)-1172-07/2023 Kand. 89

11.ANWAR ALI BIN VALI MOHAMED (NO. K/P: 650918-01-5009) …APPELLANTS

AND MINDA MUHIBAH SDN BHD (Company No: 817545-D)

CK EAST CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD (Company No: 704577-U) …RESPONDENTS CORAM: RAVINTHRAN A/L PARAMAGURU, JCA AZHAHARI KAMAL BIN RAMLI, JCA AHMAD KAMAL BIN MD SHAHID, JCA GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs against the decision of the learned High Court Judge (HCJ) in dismissing their claim against the respondents/defendants for the losses and damages suffered by the appellants/plaintiffs due to the respondents/defendants’ development works on the land adjacent to the plaintiffs’ houses.

In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court.

The facts of this case can be gleaned from the grounds of judgment of the learned HCJ which we summarised as follows.

The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors and residence of a row of houses, located at Jalan Mutiara 2, Taman Muda Gombak 2.

The 1st defendant is the developer and/or occupier of land known as Lot 17782, Geran Mukim 1710, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the 1st defendant’s land). The 1st defendant’s land is adjacent to the plaintiffs’ land. The rear boundaries of the plaintiffs’ houses adjoin the 1st defendant’s land.

The 2nd defendant is the main contractor appointed by the 1st defendant to construct 29 units of three-story link house project known as Anjung Melati Dua (the defendant’s project).

The plaintiffs pleaded that before the defendant’s project commenced in 2009, there was a low-lying swampy area that acted as a detention pond behind their houses. The water collected by this pond came from surface run-off water from the Lebuhraya Lingkaran Tengah 2 (MRR2) and its adjacent areas, which are on higher land than the pond.

The water collected would then flow into a stream and was discharged into another detention pond located next to Surau Al Mukmin at Jalan Mutiara 1, Gombak.

In early 2018, the defendants began their construction works involving substantial earthwork and backfill on the 1st defendant’s land. This was followed by the erection of a Reinforced Concrete Wall (RC Wall) at the ground boundary near the plaintiffs’ houses, abutting the boundaries and in close proximity with the plaintiffs’ houses to restrain the earth platform.

The plaintiffs plead that the defendant’s backfilling works and the construction of the RC Wall covered the waterway behind the plaintiffs’ house and blocked the natural flow of the waterway. Together with the Resident’s Association, they had protested and raised concern on the erection of the RC Wall with the local authorises including the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang (MPS), Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Daerah Gombak (JPS) and the Menteri Besar of Selangor, but to no avail.

The investigation by the MPS and JPS showed that the 1st defendant had not disclosed the existence of the natural water flow from the MRR2 and the surrounding areas that flowed through the 1st defendant’s land. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants had subsequently obtained their planning approvals from the local authorities by intentionally concealing the natural water flow coming from the MRR2 that would flow through the defendants’ land onto the waterway behind the plaintiffs’ house.

Due to the non-natural use of the defendants’ land, the detention pond had been covered with soil and disrupted the water flow from the MRR2.

Notwithstanding that the plaintiffs had objected to the construction of the RC Wall and the defendant’s project, the defendants proceeded with their development works in the 1st defendant’s land.

On or around July 2018, the plaintiffs started to observe that cracks and soil settlement were gradually occurring in their houses. The cracks and settlement were not only observed in the extension of the plaintiffs’ houses but also in the original structure of their houses. According to the plaintiffs, the cracks and settlement only occurred after the commencement of the defendants’ project.

The plaintiffs also plead that due to the defendants’ development works blocking off the natural water-way and without proper design of the drainage system, flooding incidents occurred as follows:

on 12.11.2018 a large volume of water, soil, debris and other waste materials accumulated and escaped into the plaintiffs’ house during heavy rainfall;

(ii) on 28.3.2019 the remains of the swampy area after the filling works were flooded and the water escaped through the gaps in the RC Wall and flowed to the plaintiff’s house; and

(iii) on 4.4.2019 accumulated water on the land began to overflow from the upstream low-lying areas and over the top of the RC Wall and spilled into some of the plaintiffs’ houses. Consequently, the rear wall of the 9th and 10th plaintiffs’ houses collapsed. The MPS had issued a stop work order to carry out mitigation work, with limited measures taken by JKR.

On 30.8.2019, the defendants carried out further earthworks, including digging a trench parallel to the RC Wall. It was alleged that the construction activities of the defendants had caused severe damage to the plaintiffs’ house.

The plaintiffs plead that the defendants had breached the common law duty of care to the plaintiffs. They further plead that the defendants had breached section 5 (1)(b) of the Water Act 1920 for adversely impacting and obstructing the detention pond. They also plead that the defendants had offended section 25(1) of the Environmental Quality Act 1974.

The defendants averred that they had secured all necessary approval from all relevant authorities for the development works, including the erection of the RC wall. In fact, for the erection of the RC wall, the defendants had obtained various reports such as Soil Investigation Report in December 2013, Terrain Mapping Report on 11.2.2014, Geotechnical Report on 20.3.2017 and Independent Auditor Report in April 2017. The defendants maintain that the construction of the RC Wall complies with all necessary legal requirements.

It is also the defendant’s case that the flow of surface run-off water from the MRR2 highway was through a temporary cascading drain of MRR2 which falls under the purview of the JKR and/or its agents, servants or contractor, Terminal Bersepadu Gombak Sdn Bhd (TEGAS) for the upgrading works on the MRR2 at that material time. The cascading drain is a temporary measure JKR and TEGAS took to direct surface water run-off while upgrading works were in place. The defendants also state that they had notified the MPS on 7.5.2018 that the upgrading works on the MRR2 should have a sound water dispersal system rather than allowing it to be discharged on private lands, but no action was taken. Further, at another meeting, the parties involved had agreed that the JKR should ensure that the water flow should be diverted to the Gombak River, not the detention pond. However, despite several letters and reminders, no action has been taken by the MPS, TEGAS or JKR.

In the circumstances, the defendants cannot be faulted for the said flood, as it was an act beyond their control. The approval they obtained several months before the approval was granted to TEGAS and JKR for the MRR highway upgrading works had not contemplated the volume of water from the surface run-off water of the MRR2 highway during the upgrading works.

It is also contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs had done extensive renovation and/or extension works on their houses to the boundary edge with no set back present. The plaintiffs had also refused the defendant’s offer to carry out a dilapidation survey on their houses to determine the structure and settlement of the ground. Hence, the defendants deny that the cracks appearing on the plaintiffs’ houses were caused by their construction works.

In dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim, the learned HCJ found that the source of the water that caused the flooding and damage was an essential factor to be considered. However, she held that there is no compelling and definitive evidence to support the contention that the defendant’s RC Wall had blocked the waterway causing the deluge. It is merely speculation and unsupported assertion by the plaintiffs. The learned HCJ opined that there is no evidence to attach the liability to the defendants, as what has been presented are conjectures and speculation. She also finds no photographs, video recordings or other evidence were produced to demonstrate the existence of the river. Further, there is no relevant and definitive evidence that the erection of the RC Wall had caused the ground settlement under some of the plaintiffs’ house. The learned HCJ also found that there is no persuasive material to attribute the flooding incidents to the plaintiffs’ houses on the defendants’ construction works.

It is settled law that the appellate court would be slow in interfering with the decision of the trial court unless it is shown that the trial court is plainly wrong when arriving at the decision now under appeal. In this respect, this court could not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge, save and except where the decision of the trial court is plainly wrong where in arriving at the decision it could not reasonably be explained or justified and is one which no reasonable judge could have reached. If the decision did not fall within any of the aforesaid categories, it is irrelevant, even if the appellate court thinks that, with whatever degree of certainty, it considered that it would have reached a different conclusion from the trial judge (see Gan Yook Chin (P) & Anor v Lee Ing Chin & & Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 1; Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v Wendy Tan Lee Peng (administratrix for the estate of Tan Ewe Kwang, deceased) & Ors [2020] 12 MLJ 67 and Jade Homes Sdn Bhd v Sivananthan a/l Krishnan [2021] 5 MLJ 349).

In his book, Civil and Criminal Appeals in Malaysia,4th Edition, learned author Tan Kay Heng has summarised the duty of the appellate court as follows: [6.013] However, the appellate court is under a duty to intervene on the finding of fact of the trial court where the trial court has so fundamentally misdirected itself that one may safely say that no reasonable court which had properly directed itself and asked the correct questions would have arrived at the same conclusion,34 which means an appellate court would carry out an examination of the reasoning in respect of the finding of fact in the light of all the evidence adduced before the trial court.35 An appellate court should not hesitate to disturb the findings of the trial court if there were failure on the part of the trial court to appreciate the issues and/or evidence, to properly and adequately evaluate the evidence, to make the proper findings and inferences or deductions, to give reasons, and or to apply the correct law to the facts.36

With the above principle of law in mind, we will now consider the appeal before us.

The plaintiff’s claim is based on negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance. To understand the plaintiffs’ case, it is pertinent to consider the amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs’ pleaded case is that as that as early or prior to year 2009 and before the commencement of the development works on the first defendant’s land there was a low-lying swampy area which functioned as a detention pond behind the plaintiffs’ houses which form part of the defendant’s land (paragraph 6). The source of the waters running into the detention pond originated from, among others, the surface run-off from the MRR2 highway and its adjacent areas which are situated on elevated terrains in comparison to the detention pond. The water would then would then flow from the low-lying detention pond before narrowing into a stream which would finally be discharged into a detention pond next to Surau Al Mukmin at Jalan Mutiara 1, Mutiara Gombak 1, Gombak (paragraph 7).

The plaintiffs further plead that defendant’s development works on the land include substantial back fill earthworks and also the construction of the RC Wall (paragraph 11). The earthworks carried out by the defendant constituted non-natural use of the defendants’ land. As a result of this works, the detention pond and the stream behind the plaintiffs’ houses were covered up with soil, thus blocking and/or disrupting the existing water flowing from MRR2 and its adjacent areas to the detention pond next to Surau Al Mukmin. The terrain of the land was elevated to at least 5.7 meters higher than the lands in which the plaintiffs’ houses were situated by backfilling behind the RC Wall, resulting in settlement of the RC Wall and the plaintiffs’ houses (paragraph 12).

Based on the above facts in paragraphs 26 and 27, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants are liable for the damage caused to their houses as the result of the major flood on 9.4.2019 as well as the back-fill earthworks and also the construction of the RC Wall. Plaintiffs’ claim on negligence

While the plaintiffs may have sufficiently plead their case in the amended statement of claim, they bear the burden to prove the elements of negligence against the defendants namely:

the defendants owe a duty of care;

the defendants had breached that duty of care by failing to meet the required standard of care;

there is a causal link between the breach and the damage suffered by the plaintiffs; and

there is actual damage suffered by the plaintiff resulted from the breach. (see Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 and Arab Malaysian Finance Bhd v Stephan Phoa Cheng Loon [2003] 1 MLJ 567)

In proving their case, it is the plaintiffs’ case that prior to the construction of the defendant’s project, there was a stream which would collect the water from the surface run-off from the MRR2 highway and its adjacent areas which would finally be discharged into a detention pond next to Surau Al Mukmin. Due to the defendants’ project, the detention pond and the stream behind the plaintiffs’ houses were covered up with soil, thus blocking and/or disrupting the existing water flowing from MRR2. According to the plaintiffs, this is the direct cause of the major floods that had caused massive damage to their property.

In proving this fact, the plaintiffs’ witnesses maintained that there was a stream behind their houses and tendered photographs showing the purported stream. The plaintiffs also relied on:

a letter from the Jabatan Parit dan Saliran (JPS) dated 14.4.2014 to the defendants informing them that the “pelan ukur yang dikemukakan tidak lengkap kerana tidak menujukkan parit dari “Twin Culvert” and that the “pelan ukur mestilah menunjukkan semua ‘feature’ yang sediada di atas tanah seperti sungai, parit, kolam, jalan, pembetungan dan lain-lain bangunan jika ada”.

the said twin culvert probably shows that at the point in time when the plans for the project were submitted between 2011 and 2015, there was a source of water onto the land to the north of the defendants’ land;

a letter from the Jabatan Parit dan Saliran (JPS) dated 11.3.2019 to the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang (MPS) applying for a stop work order against the 1st defendant on the ground of the defendants’ non-compliance with the conditions imposed by JPS. In the same letter, the JPS also made a remark that: kerja-kerja tanah di tapak didapati menjadi antara penyebab berlakunya kejadian banjir kilat di lot bersebelahan iaitu di Taman Mutiara Gombak

a topography map which was superimposed on the lay out plan of the defendant’s project which show the existence of 2 steams on the defendants’ land.

On the face of all these evidences, the plaintiffs submit that the major flood on 9.4.2019 that resulted in the damage to their houses was caused by the defendants’ breach of duty of care.

However, during cross examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, the following important facts are discovered: a) the topography plan has been prepared long before the existence of the MRR2;

the MRR2 was constructed either in early year 2000 or late 1990s;

the MRR2 project was constructed across (merentasi) the 2 streams;

to accommodate the MRR2 project, the 2 rivers have either been diverted or that a drainage in the form of a culvert had been constructed to divert the flow of the stream;

the existence of the twin culvert as raised in the JPS letter dated 14.4.2014 could be a temporary structure. Hence when the defendants’ consultant inspected the site in 2015, he did not see any culvert and neither was the same be seen by the licenced surveyor who prepared the survey plan;

on 14.3.2017 the contractor for the MRR2 upgrading project had obtained the approval from the JPS in relation to the drainage works proposed in relation to the said upgrading works;

the approval for the drainage works in the MRR2 upgrading works was obtained some 10 months after the defendants had obtained by the defendants. It must be noted that the drainage approval for the MRR2 upgrading works was obtained without the participation of the defendants;

the defendants had obtained the approval from the JPS for the project in the said land on 20.5.2016 and the JPS did not make it a requirement for the defendant to divert or make any allocations for any river/stream running through the defendants’ land;

in the course of the MRR2 upgrading project, the contractor for the said project (TEGAS) constructed 2 cascading drains from MRR2 project which diverted surface runoff water from the MRR2 project onto a plot of land immediately to the north of the defendants’ land.

Based on the above facts, there are 2 conflicting versions on the probable cause of the major flood that had damaged the plaintiffs’ properties. In this respect, the learned HCJ being the trier of facts is required to assess, weigh and for good reasons either accept or reject the whole or any part of the evidence placed before her (see Wee Lian Construction Sdn Bhd v Ingersoll-Jati Malaysia Sdn Bhd [2010] 3 MLJ 425). In the case of Wasal Construction Sdn Bhd v Boh Huat Chan Timber Products Sdn Bhd [2014] 4 MLJ 294 this court states that a proper judicial appreciation of evidence would mean that the trial judge had considered every piece of material evidence adduced before him or her and had tested this evidence against contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting the oral evidence of the witnesses and gave reasons for accepting or rejecting them.

In this regard, it is instructive to consider the observation by the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v Nikolaisen [2002] 2 SCR 235 that: The trial judge has sat through the entire case and his ultimate judgement reflects this total familiarity with the evidence. The insight gained by the trial judge who has lived with the case for several days, weeks or even months may be far deeper than that of the Court of Appeal whose view of the case is much more limited and narrow, often being shaped and distorted by the various orders or rulings being challenged.

Hence, in the case of Terengganu Forest Products Sdn Bhd v Cosco Container Lines Co Ltd & Anor and other applications [2011] 1 MLJ 25, the Federal Court opines: On matters of finding of facts and legitimate exercise of discretion by the courts of original jurisdiction is also often not interfered with by the appellate courts. An appellate court would normally not want to substitute its own subjective assessment of these matters to findings and conclusions arrived at by courts from where the decisions are appealed from. The other reason, of course, is the appellate court is going to be flooded by appeals is it would be too easily persuaded to substitute its own decision in those instances. After all each judge has his own subjective view on many issues. This is so in spite of the fact that we judges have gone through the same training and perhaps gone through the sane experience but we still decide differently.

It is observed that the learned HCJ had duly considered the evidence before concluding that the material before her were “speculative materials leading to a suggestion that it was possible”. It was the learned HCJ finding that the plaintiffs’ witnesses, including the experts in their respective fields, could not satisfactorily nail the issue to establish guilt on the defendants’ part. In this regard, the learned HCJ made the following finding of facts:

contrary to the assertions of the plaintiffs, the court find that the water source that had caused the flooding and damage is essential to this case. It was undeniable at the time that a substantial deluge of surface runoff water from MRR2 (during the upgrading period) had contributed to the area’s flooding. Evidence at trial shows that the relevant authorities were concerned about diverting the water to Sungai Gombak, involving third parties to mitigate flooding issues. However, evidence showed that it was not done. JKR had to take mitigating actions to arrest the problem. It is not disputed that the upgrading works on MRR2 with significant volumes of surface runoff water being diverted into the plot of land north of 1st defendant’s land. In the circumstances, it is safe to hold that, other than the defendants, other relevant and pertinent party(s) were in play to the flooding incidents that had not been brought forward for whatever reason(s) best known to the plaintiffs.

the Defendant’s construction and development activities in the project secured all the required approvals from the relevant public authorities. They had the legal right to undertake the duly approved project on the 1st defendant’s land. If any of those approvals are suspect or wrongly issued without considering the welfare and interest of the plaintiffs that share the same locality or neighbourhood, it should be challenged by judicial review under O53 to arrest the said development works from commencing and/or proceeding.

the contractor for MRR2 i.e. TEGAS, a highway that is on an elevated topographical point compared to 1st defendant’s land and the plaintiffs houses in Taman Mutiara Gombak 2, had also obtained approval from JPS to carry out drainage works to divert surface runoff water while the planned upgrading works were undertaken. It had been shown that TEGAS had constructed two cascading drains from MRR2 which immediately diverted surface runoff water from the MRR2 onto a plot north of 1st defendant’s land. A slit trap was also constructed at the bottom of the cascading drains. Surface runoff water from the MRR2 would flow into the slit trap and, following the land topography, flows towards the lower-lying area of Taman Mutiara Gombak 2. It had also been shown that no flooding incidents occurred before this exercise.

the deluge occurred of three separate incidents (12 November 2018, 28 March 2019 and 4 April 2019). Cognisance must be taken that on 9 April 2019, 1st defendant, MPS, JPS and TEGAS met to decide that JKR would divert the water from MRR2 to Sungai Gombak, which is towards the northern direction and away from the 1st defendant’s land. Cognisance must also be taken that after JKR eventually sealed off the sump on the top of one of the cascading drains from MRR2, where the volume of water from MRR2 was being diverted into the plot of land adjacent to 1st defendant’s land, no further incidents of flooding occurred. SP14 (Dr Toh Cheng Teik, plaintiffs’ expert witness) confirmed no more flooding was reported after the foregoing actions was taken (pp 97 to 98, NOP Vol. 3, encl. 226). SD2 (Dr Andy Chiam Tou Ping, Defendants’ expert witness), in his evidence (p.375, NOP, Vol. 3, encl.226), stated that except for three flooding instances, the temporary drainage measure taken by the defendants in the development project managed to accommodate the deluge of water from MRR2, with no flooding of the plaintiffs houses.

We find that, based on the record of appeal, the finding of facts above is not unreasonable. Those findings were made based on the evidence before the learned HCJ including the contemporaneous documentary evidence tendered during the trial. Those findings were founded on relevant evidence, hence we find no appealable error warranting appellate intervention by this court. The plaintiffs’ claim based on nuisance.

Generally, nuisance is an interference with the use or enjoyment of one’s land. To succeed in a claim for nuisance, the plaintiff must prove that there is an unreasonable and substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of their land. In this case, the plaintiffs plead that the development works on the defendants’ land had constituted unnatural use of the land, hence created a dangerous situation for the plaintiffs.

In this respect, it was pointed out by the defendants that the plaintiffs’ amended Statement of Claim (SOC) pleads that the backfilling of the RC Wall as the event that had caused land settlement resulting in the damage to their houses. The amended SOC reads:

11.Notwithstanding the protest from the Residents’ Association and various directions from the authorities, the 1st Defendant’s and/or the 2nd Defendant’s development works including but not limited to, substantial earthworks, backfill earthworks and construction of the RC Wall on the land continued.

The plaintiffs plead that as a result of the 1st Defendant’s and/or 2nd Defendant’s actions pleaded above and elaborated on below, which constituted non-natural use of the Land, the plaintiffs’ Houses suffered settlement and cracks damages. therefore, the defendants created a dangerous situation for the plaintiffs.

….

the terrain of the Land was elevated to at least 5.7 meters higher than the lands in which the plaintiffs’ Houses were situated on by backfilling behind the RC Wall, resulting in settlement of the RC Wall and the plaintiffs’ Houses; and

(c)….

We agree with the learned HCJ that the plaintiffs are bound by their pleaded case. The case of Kuala Terengganu Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd & Anor v Ahmad Thaqis Amzar Ahmad Huzairi & Other Appeals [2022] 1 LNS 2213 was cited by the learned HCJ. (see also the case of AmBank (M) Bhd v Abdul Aziz bin Hassan & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 784). Hence, in this case in proving nuisance, the plaintiffs can only refer substantial earthworks, backfill earthworks and construction of the RC Wall as the cause of the settlement that had caused damages to their houses.

In this respect, the evidence adduced are as follows:

the plaintiffs’ expert witness Dr Toh Cheng Teik stated that there are two possible causes of the cracks to the plaintiffs’ houses namely (i) occurring because of the defendants backfilling of the RC Wall; and (ii) occurring over piling works by the defendants. However, in view of the plaintiffs’ pleaded case, the plaintiffs are prohibited from relying on the issue of piling in their attempt to prove nuisance;

the plaintiffs’ second expert witness En Abdul Aziz bin Md Noor opined that any settlement resulting from the construction and backfilling of the RC Wall (if any) would have occurred before any of the measurements were taken. In this case, he stated that during the monitoring period, there were only residual settlement, which were very small, which in terms of geotechnical engineering, is not an issue. He further stated that any differential settlement of less than a couple of inches, generally is not an issue; and

the plaintiffs’ expert witness Dr Toh Cheng Teik also stated that there was effectively no settlement on the plaintiffs’ houses during the observation period from 25.7.2019 to 25.8.2019. This witness also observed that the settlement recorded on both monitoring exercises is extremely small and unlikely to result in structural distress.

We reiterate our view with regard to the limited scope of appellate intervention in paragraphs [34] to [36] above. We must also state that we have agreed with the finding of the learned HCJ regarding the issue of blocking/disrupting of the water flowing from the MRR2 project. Since the rule of pleadings prohibits the issue of piling works as the cause of settlement to be raised, there is insufficient evidence that could prove the settlement was due earthworks, backfill earthworks and construction of the RC Wall. In other words, there is no unreasonable and substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of the plaintiffs’ land.

For the aforesaid reasons, and based on the evidence before the learned HCJ we are of the opinion she is justified in finding that the claim for nuisance is unmeritorious. We also agree with her finding that while the defendants owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs as the lawful neighbour for the development and construction works undertaken, there is no compelling materials that the defendants had breached that duty of care. In the final analysis, we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities.

For the reasons stated above, we dismiss the appeal. The order of the High Court dated 23.6.2023 is hereby affirmed. Based on the facts of this case, we exercise our discretion and make no order as to costs. Dated: 8 July, 2025 -sgd-AZHAHARI KAMAL BIN RAMLI JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL MALAYSIA For the Appellant :

Rajendra Navaratnam 2.Koh Yi Ting [Azman Davidson & Co] For the Respondent : Daniel Bock Jr Wei [Shukor Baljit & Partners]