1. ) GM AERO SUPPORT SDN. BHD. 2. ) SYCAL BERHAD 3. ) LAU YEE SUM (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA PERUNDING JUTERA) 4. ) PERUNDING REKACEKAP SDN BHD 5. ) LEE YONG CHIEW (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA YC LEE ARCHITECT) 6. ) ZAHIRUDDIN BIN Z

1. ) GM AERO SUPPORT SDN. BHD. 2. ) SYCAL BERHAD 3. ) LAU YEE SUM (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA PERUNDING JUTERA) 4. ) PERUNDING REKACEKAP SDN BHD 5. ) LEE YONG CHIEW (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA YC LEE ARCHITECT) 6. ) ZAHIRUDDIN BIN Z

The Court held that documents obtained under compulsion (B106 and B108) ceased to be protected by the implied undertaking once they were filed, marked and used/read in open court and thus were public documents; the High Court erred in applying Harman (majority) to maintain the implied undertaking and in concluding the Kuantan/Temerloh proceedings were collateral. Leave to commence committal and leave to use documents were wrongly granted; appellants entitled to use the documents in related proceedings without prior leave. High Court orders set aside and appeals allowed with costs.

Citation
W-02(IM)(C)-1548-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: GM Aero Support Sdn. Bhd.; Appellant: Sycal Berhad; Appellant: Lau Yee Sum; Appellant: Perunding Rekacekap Sdn. Bhd.; Appellant: Lee Yong Chiew; Appellant: Zahiruddin bin Zainal; Respondent: Genting Highlands Berhad; Respondent: Genting Malaysia Berhad; Respondent: First World Hotels & Resorts Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent: Khoh Siew Kim
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Case Number
W-02(IM)(C)-1548-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside
Legal Topics
Riddick Principle, Implied Undertaking, Use of Disclosed Documents, Leave to Commence Committal, Public Documents, Open Justice, Protective Orders, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Law Judicial Review Administrative Law Land Law Contempt of Court Riddick Principle Implied Undertaking +7 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GM Aero Support Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant

Sycal Berhad

Appellant

Lau Yee Sum

Appellant

Perunding Rekacekap Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant

Lee Yong Chiew

Appellant

Zahiruddin bin Zainal

Appellant

Genting Highlands Berhad

Respondent

Genting Malaysia Berhad

Respondent

First World Hotels & Resorts Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent

Khoh Siew Kim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Determination on Appeal (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the implied undertaking (Riddick principle) continues to apply to documents obtained under compulsion once filed and used/read in open court
  2. 2 Whether leave of the court is required to use documents disclosed under compulsion in related proceedings (judicial review/originating summons)
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's grant of leave for committal and leave to use documents was appealable and whether the appeals were academic or premature

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that documents obtained under compulsion (B106 and B108) ceased to be protected by the implied undertaking once they were filed, marked and used/read in open court and thus were public documents; the High Court erred in applying Harman (majority) to maintain the implied undertaking and in concluding the Kuantan/Temerloh proceedings were collateral. Leave to commence committal and leave to use documents were wrongly granted; appellants entitled to use the documents in related proceedings without prior leave. High Court orders set aside and appeals allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside

Orders

  • Respondents' striking out applications (Encl.27 in Appeal 1518 and Encl.29 in Appeal 1548) dismissed with costs
  • Respondents' further evidence applications (Encl.22 in Appeal 1518 and Encl.24 in Appeal 1548) dismissed with costs