E-mail evidence and the hearsay rule – commentary on a recent Malaysian case

Gita Radhakrishna examines the recent case of Avnet Azure Sdn. Bh.d v Eact Technologies Sdn Bhd and Sapura Research Sdn. Bhd. in which the hearsay rule was tested in the context of e-mail evidence. In Malaysia, the rule against hearsay is contained in section 60 of the Evidence Act 1950 (EA 1950). As is well known amongst lawyers practicing in a common law jurisdiction, hearsay is basically evidence that is not direct. Such evidence is normally inadmissible. As such the hearsay rule operates to prohibit a witness from reporting a statement made by another person where the truth of any fact asserted in that statement is incapable of being tested in court. The rationale was that if the original was not produced, there was a significant chance of error or fraud in relying on a copy. However, the rule against hearsay has evolved to give credence to relevancy of facts to be balanced by the weight to be attached to it by the trier of fact