The case of UMW Toyota Motor Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Allan Chong Teck Khin & Anor [2021] 5 CLJ 193 CA is a significant Court of Appeal decision concerning the evaluation of expert evidence, the requirements for proving misrepresentation, and the necessity of a claimant’s personal testimony.
1. Core Dispute and Factual Background
The plaintiffs (respondents) purchased a Lexus NX200T vehicle, asserting they were induced by the defendants’ (appellants) advertisements on Facebook and websites which promised a “smooth, comfortable and luxurious ride”. After delivery, the first plaintiff complained of abnormal and excessive vibrations from the floorboards, which allegedly caused numbness in his legs. The plaintiffs engaged two experts (SP1 and SP2) to conduct vibration tests and subsequently sued for general and aggravated damages.
2. The High Court Decision
The High Court Judge (HCJ) held the defendants liable, finding that the vehicle was defective and that the plaintiffs had been induced by false representations. Crucially, the HCJ adopted the view that expert evidence can only be challenged or rebutted by another expert. Since the defendants did not call their own expert, the HCJ accepted the plaintiffs’ expert reports as conclusive proof of the defect.
3. Key Principles Established by the Court of Appeal
Rebuttal of Expert Testimony via Cross-Examination
The Court of Appeal ruled that the HCJ’s “over-simplified approach” was an error of law. It established that:
- A defendant is entitled to challenge expert evidence through cross-examination alone; they are not strictly required to call a counter-expert to displace the initial expert’s opinion.
- The court must consider the totality of the expert’s evidence, including oral admissions made under cross-examination.
Judicial Appreciation of Expert Admissions
In this case, the defendants’ cross-examination was highly effective. The plaintiffs’ own experts admitted that:
- The vibration levels were within the “comfortable range” of ISO standards.
- The vehicle actually showed lower vibration levels than comparison vehicles, such as a Toyota Hilux or a different Lexus luxury variant.
- The vehicle did not actually suffer from “abnormal” vibrations.
Failure to Prove Inducement (Misrepresentation)
The COA found the plaintiffs’ claim of misrepresentation lacked merit because:
- The Facebook postings used as evidence (P18) were mostly dated after the purchase order or even after the vehicle delivery; thus, they could not have induced the purchase.
- The first plaintiff admitted he only took screenshots of the “inducing” advertisements after experiencing the alleged vibration problems.
Failure of the Legal Owner to Testify
The second plaintiff, who was the legal owner of the vehicle and the party who entered the hire-purchase agreement, never attended trial or gave evidence. The COA held that:
- One plaintiff cannot testify for another by “proxy”.
- Her absence deprived the defendants of their right to cross-examine her regarding her perception of the vehicle or any alleged inducement.
Affirmation of Contract
The COA noted that the plaintiffs settled the hire-purchase loan in full in January 2019, just three months before the trial began. The court found it implausible that a party would complete the purchase and affirm the contract for a vehicle they claimed was “defective” from the day of delivery.
4. Outcome
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision and awarding costs of RM40,000 to the defendants.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified Advocate & Solicitor for your specific legal needs.
