Skip to main content

Avoiding the Hearsay Trap: Why Your Court Affidavit Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge

Avoiding the Hearsay Trap: Why Your Court Affidavit Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge

When you are involved in a commercial or civil lawsuit in Malaysia, the evidence you present can make or break your case. In many court applications, evidence is submitted through a written document called an affidavit. However, a common mistake many litigants make is including information they heard from someone else—otherwise known as hearsay evidence.
If your legal rights are being finally decided in a specific court application, using hearsay can cause the court to reject your evidence entirely.
The General Rule: Personal Knowledge Only
Under Malaysian court rules (formerly Order 41 rule 5(1) of the Rules of High Court 1980, now reflected in the Rules of Court 2012), an affidavit must only contain facts that you can personally prove.
This means you cannot say, "My manager told me that the contractor breached the agreement." Instead, the person who actually witnessed the breach must be the one to sign the affidavit.
What the Malaysian Courts Say: The Dream Property Case
This strict legal requirement was robustly affirmed by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in the landmark case of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2008].
In this case, the court clarified a crucial legal boundary:
  • The Ruling: When a specific court application will conclusively determine the legal rights of the parties, the general rule applies strictly.
  • The Outcome: The affidavit must completely exclude hearsay. The person signing the document (the deponent) must speak strictly from their own first-hand, personal knowledge.
Why This Matters for Your Business or Legal Claim
Filing a defective affidavit filled with second-hand information can lead to severe consequences for your legal strategy:
  1. Evidence Struck Out: The opposing party can apply to strike out the hearsay paragraphs, leaving your case weak.
  2. Lost Applications: If your core evidence is dismissed as hearsay, the court may rule against you in that specific application.
  3. Increased Legal Costs: Correcting these mistakes or losing applications results in unnecessary delays and higher legal fees.
How a Law Firm Helps You Navigate Affidavit Drafting
Protecting your business interests requires precision. A qualified litigation lawyer ensures your court documents are airtight by:
  • Identifying the correct individuals (deponents) who have direct knowledge of the events.
  • Reviewing drafts to systematically remove any phrases that constitute inadmissible hearsay.
  • Structuring your evidence to clearly align with current Malaysian judicial precedents.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW: After having found prosecution has established a prima facie case, trial Judge has to call accused to enter his defence

Legal Update: Why Malaysian Courts Cannot Evaluate the Insanity Defense at the Prima Facie Stage In Malaysian criminal procedure, the boundary between the prosecution stage and the defense stage is rigid. A critical question often arises in trials involving mental health: Can a trial judge acquit an accused person at the close of the prosecution's case if medical evidence strongly suggests the accused was of unsound mind during the offense? The Federal Court and Court of Appeal have definitively answered no . Evaluating a statutory defense before calling for the defense is a serious error of law. The Binding Precedents: Mohd Rozani and Pang Kar Foong The legal position was firmly clarified by the apex court in PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya [2025] 1 MLRA 203 , and subsequently reinforced by the Court of Appeal in Pendakwa Raya v Pang Kar Foong [2026] 4 MLRA 23 . In Pang Kar Foong , the Court of Appeal explicitly noted its binding obligation to follow the Federal Court’s ruling, overtu...
Read more

What are the available remedies to a purchaser when he is given a defective house out of time by the seller developer?

Late Delivery and Defective Housing: Your Legal Remedies as a Malaysian Homebuyer Buying a home is one of the most significant financial investments you will ever make in Malaysia. It can be incredibly frustrating when a housing developer delivers your property late, only for you to find it riddled with construction defects. If you are facing this situation, you have clear legal protections under Malaysian law. Here is a breakdown of the remedies available to Malaysian homebuyers when a developer delivers a defective house past the agreed deadline. 1. Compensation for Construction Defects When a developer delivers a house with defects (such as cracked walls, leaking pipes, or poor workmanship), they are legally obligated to fix them or compensate you under the standard Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) prescribed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA) . In the landmark case of LSSC Development Sdn Bhd v Thomas Iruthayam & Anor [2007] , the Court of Appeal...
Read more

STRATA MANAGEMENT: TRIBUNAL IS NOT A COURT

Why Strata Management Tribunal Awards Do Not Trigger Res Judicata: Court of Appeal Clarifies A common misconception among property owners and management bodies in Malaysia is that the Strata Management Tribunal (SMT) functions exactly like a traditional civil court. Many believe that once the SMT delivers an award, the dispute is permanently locked under the legal doctrine of res judicata (which prevents the same parties from litigating the same issue twice). However, a landmark decision by the Court of Appeal has completely dismantled this assumption. In the case of Yong Kein Sin & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan Springtide Residences and other appeals , the Court of Appeal ruled that SMT awards do not automatically attract the application of res judicata . 1. The Legal Status: An SMT is an Inferior Tribunal, Not a Court The foundation of the Court of Appeal’s ruling rests on how the law defines an adjudicating body. Under Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Section ...
Read more