In Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan & Anor v Amy Loh Shook Fun & Ors, one of the defendants, a former solicitor, applied to testify via Zoom from the United States as she had relocated to the United States and claimed that her employment as a preschool teacher made it not feasible to travel to Malaysia.
The plaintiffs objected on the grounds that her physical presence was necessary due to the serious allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and dishonest assistance. The plaintiffs also contended that the said defendant was a material witness involved in the execution of numerous disputed instruments involving the case.
The High Court dismissed the said application with costs. The Court noted that the said defendant’s counsel had previously made an oral request for remote testimony, which was already refused during a previous case management. The Court held that the renewed application amounted to a second bite of the cherry.
The High Court also held that this is a case of public interest and must be dealt with efficiently, effectively, and expeditiously. The Court found that allowing remote testimony would prejudice the many other parties involved across the main action and counterclaim, especially considering that this suit and another related suit were being heard together.
The Court emphasised that the interests of justice would be best served by physical testimony, particularly where issues of credibility and integrity of the witness were central. The said defendant was not sued in her personal capacity but as a partner of a legal firm, and the Court held that the justice of the case lies with physical attendance.
An earlier version of this case summary was published by Foong Cheng Leong on LinkedIn.
Leave a Reply