Dispute Resolution
Admissibility of Documents Where Contents or Notations Are Disputed: Federal Court Ruling in Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate
In Live Capital Sdn Bhd v Pioneer Conglomerate Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1308, the central issue concerned the respondent (“plaintiff”) seeking the return of an interest-free loan of RM7 million allegedly advanced to the appellant (“defendant”) through two cheques. To substantiate its claim that the sum was a loan and not a commission, the respondent relied on two payment vouchers associated with the cheques.
However, the admissibility of the vouchers came into question. The parties classified the two vouchers as Part C document as:
- The vouchers contained typewritten words/handwritten notations stating that the payments were advances, but these notations were not present at the time the second defendant witness (“DW2”) signed the vouchers.
- The respondent failed to produce the original vouchers despite requests from the appellant.
In deciding whether the two vouchers should be converted from identification documents (“IDP”) (for identification purposes only) into exhibits (as proof of authenticity and truth of contents), the Federal Court unanimously held that:
- A document cannot be admitted in evidence and marked as such until it has been properly proved. For the two vouchers to be used as evidence in support of the respondent’s claim, they must first be proved to have been properly admitted in evidence. It was not the duty of the appellant to ensure proper admission of the two vouchers as exhibits, let alone to prove that they had been forged, altered or tampered with.
- Since the vouchers tendered were not originals and were disputed in terms of authenticity and content, they could only be marked as IDP, that is, for identification purposes only and not for the purpose of proving the truth of their contents until after the maker or makers of the documents were called to give evidence.
- Unless the authenticity of the two vouchers had been verified by calling the maker or makers of the documents, the contents of the documents remained hearsay as the purpose of producing them was to prove the truth of the contents and not merely to prove that the notation and alterations were made.
