Azhar Bin Atan Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Azhar Bin Atan (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Mohd Shah Bin Manaf (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 3. ) Jihan Yusnizan Binti Mohd Yusoff (Mengikut Tunttan Balas) 4. ) Goh Mui Chiuan (Mengiku

Azhar Bin Atan Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd BUKAN PIHAK-PIHAK 1. ) Azhar Bin Atan (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Mohd Shah Bin Manaf (Mengikut Tuntutan Balas) 3. ) Jihan Yusnizan Binti Mohd Yusoff (Mengikut Tunttan Balas) 4. ) Goh Mui Chiuan (Mengiku

CELO had a prior retainer for the company in relation to PU 2022 and materially participated in preparing and witnessing PU 2022, BEA and CA; the current proceedings are sufficiently connected to that retainer such that there is a real likelihood Datuk Clarence Edwin will be a material witness and that confidential information relevant to the present disputes exists; accordingly the risk of conflict and misuse of privileged material justified disqualification under the court's jurisdiction and applicable professional rules. Separately, Shah was granted an extension to file defence on bona fide grounds but the court refused to grant default judgment since Shah presented arguable defences....

Citation
JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 16 02/2025); Defendant in Counterclaim: Azhar bin Atan; Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 16 02/2025); Plaintiff in Counterclaim and Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025): Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd; Defendant (counterclaim): Mohd Shah bin Manaf; Defendant (counterclaim): Jihan Yusnizah binti Mohd Yusof; Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Defendant (counterclaim): Goh Mon Chiuan; Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Defendant (counterclaim): Sonny Yeow Keng Wan; Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Current Controller of Tokoh Agro: Lim Sau Chong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 December 2025
Case Number
JA-22NCvC-16-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil: Land, Contract, Misrepresentation, Professional Ethics and Counterclaims / Interlocutory Applications Heard (applications for Disqualification of Counsel, Extension of Time, Default Judgment and Amendment of Pleadings); Judgment on Interlocutory Matters
Outcome
Interlocutory applications allowed in part and dismissed in part: CELO disqualified from acting for specified parties in both actions; Shah granted extension to file defence; application for default judgment refused; amendment of pleadings allowed.
Legal Topics
Disqualification of Counsel, Privilege and Confidential Communications, Extension of Time to File Defence, Default Judgment (summary), Amendment of Pleadings, Misrepresentation/fraud, Appointment of New Counsel
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Professional Ethics Property Law Contract Law Evidence Law Conflict of Interest Disqualification of Counsel Privilege and Confidential Communications +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Azhar bin Atan

Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 16 02/2025); Defendant in Counterclaim

Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd

Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 16 02/2025); Plaintiff in Counterclaim and Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025)

Mohd Shah bin Manaf

Defendant (counterclaim)

Jihan Yusnizah binti Mohd Yusof

Defendant (counterclaim)

Goh Mon Chiuan

Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Defendant (counterclaim)

Sonny Yeow Keng Wan

Plaintiff (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Defendant (counterclaim)

Lim Sau Chong

Defendant (ja 22 NCVC 52 04/2025); Current Controller of Tokoh Agro

Procedural Posture

Civil: Land, Contract, Misrepresentation, Professional Ethics and Counterclaims / Interlocutory Applications Heard (applications for Disqualification of Counsel, Extension of Time, Default Judgment and Amendment of Pleadings); Judgment on Interlocutory Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clarence Edwin Law Offices (CELO) had a prior retainer with Tokoh Agro (plaintiff in counterclaim)
  2. 2 Whether the present claims (based on CA/BEA) are sufficiently connected to the prior retainer (PU 2022) to engage duties on confidences and conflict rules
  3. 3 Whether Datuk Clarence Edwin is likely to be a material witness such that Kaedah 28 applies

Ratio Decidendi

CELO had a prior retainer for the company in relation to PU 2022 and materially participated in preparing and witnessing PU 2022, BEA and CA; the current proceedings are sufficiently connected to that retainer such that there is a real likelihood Datuk Clarence Edwin will be a material witness and that confidential information relevant to the present disputes exists; accordingly the risk of conflict and misuse of privileged material justified disqualification under the court's jurisdiction and applicable professional rules. Separately, Shah was granted an extension to file defence on bona fide grounds but the court refused to grant default judgment since Shah presented arguable defences....

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications allowed in part and dismissed in part: CELO disqualified from acting for specified parties in both actions; Shah granted extension to file defence; application for default judgment refused; amendment of pleadings allowed.

Orders

  • Clarence Edwin Law Offices and all counsel practising therein are disqualified and prohibited from acting for Jihan Yusnizah, Goh Mon Chiuan and Sonny Yeow Keng Wan in the counterclaim in JA-22NCVC-16-02/2025 (Kandungan 26).
  • Clarence Edwin Law Offices and all counsel practising therein are disqualified and prohibited from acting for Goh Mon Chiuan and Sonny Yeow Keng Wan in action JA-22NCVC-52-04/2025 (Kandungan 6).