AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 716944-A AKER ENGINEERING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 70660-D) SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY (NO. K/P : 750411-08-5786)

AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 716944-A AKER ENGINEERING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 70660-D) SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY (NO. K/P : 750411-08-5786)

Paragraph 25 of the protective order is a lawful exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to protect confidential material in litigation; it does not unlawfully infringe the defendant's right to choose counsel because counsel may be appointed but must give a written confidentiality undertaking before receiving the materials; sealing/restrictive access measures were appropriately implemented; therefore the application to vary paragraph 25 is dismissed.

Citation
WA-22NCVC-232-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.; Plaintiff: AKER ENGINEERING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.; Defendant: SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Case Number
WA-22NCVC-232-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Vary Protective/anton Piller Order / Judgment on Rule 115 Application to Vary Protective Order
Outcome
Application to vary paragraph 25 dismissed
Legal Topics
Protective Order, Anton Piller Order, Sealing Order, Undertaking of Confidentiality, Right to Counsel
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Confidentiality Legal Profession Constitutional Law Protective Order Anton Piller Order Sealing Order +2 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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKER SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff

AKER ENGINEERING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff

SEETHA A/P KUMARASAMY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Vary Protective/anton Piller Order / Judgment on Rule 115 Application to Vary Protective Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 25 of the protective/Anton Piller order requiring written undertakings from defendant's counsel is lawful
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 25 infringes the defendant's right to choose counsel or rights under Legal Profession Act 1976 s35 and Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant protective orders and impose confidentiality undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 25 of the protective order is a lawful exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction to protect confidential material in litigation; it does not unlawfully infringe the defendant's right to choose counsel because counsel may be appointed but must give a written confidentiality undertaking before receiving the materials; sealing/restrictive access measures were appropriately implemented; therefore the application to vary paragraph 25 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to vary paragraph 25 dismissed

Orders

  • Application under Rule 115 dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to fi alokatur