KHOO YIK CHOU 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. ) NICHOLAS FUNG WIN JUAN

KHOO YIK CHOU 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. ) NICHOLAS FUNG WIN JUAN

The Court held the interrogatories sought factual transactional information (names of recipients, amounts, dates, modes and bank details) which are not communications seeking or giving legal advice and therefore are not protected by section 126 Evidence Act 1950; there was prima facie evidence that the firm held RM1.5 million as stakeholder and the interrogatories were necessary to trace misapplied stakeholder funds and to fairly dispose of the matter and save costs, accordingly leave to serve the interrogatories was granted.

Citation
WA-22NCC-78-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Khoo Yik Chou; 1st Defendant: Koay Liang Kheng; 2nd Defendant: Lee Kah Wei; 3rd Defendant: Saw Chia Hui; 4th Defendant: Nicholas Fung Win Juan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 October 2025
Case Number
WA-22NCC-78-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Writ Summons (application for Interrogatories) / Interlocutory Application Heard and Allowed by High Court; Costs Awarded; Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for interrogatories against the 2nd defendant allowed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories (order 26), Stakeholder Duties, Legal Professional Privilege (solicitor Client), Tracing of Funds, Disclosure Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Evidence Law Trusts and Trustees Interrogatories (order 26) Stakeholder Duties Legal Professional Privilege (solicitor Client) Tracing of Funds +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khoo Yik Chou

Plaintiff

Koay Liang Kheng

1st Defendant

Lee Kah Wei

2nd Defendant

Saw Chia Hui

3rd Defendant

Nicholas Fung Win Juan

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Writ Summons (application for Interrogatories) / Interlocutory Application Heard and Allowed by High Court; Costs Awarded; Appeal Filed to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether information sought is protected by solicitor–client privilege under section 126 Evidence Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether the application wrongly presupposes fiduciary duties owed by the law firm when denied
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories amount to a fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the interrogatories sought factual transactional information (names of recipients, amounts, dates, modes and bank details) which are not communications seeking or giving legal advice and therefore are not protected by section 126 Evidence Act 1950; there was prima facie evidence that the firm held RM1.5 million as stakeholder and the interrogatories were necessary to trace misapplied stakeholder funds and to fairly dispose of the matter and save costs, accordingly leave to serve the interrogatories was granted.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for interrogatories against the 2nd defendant allowed

Orders

  • Leave granted for plaintiff to serve interrogatories on 2nd defendant pursuant to Order 26 Rules of Court 2012
  • 2nd defendant to answer interrogatories seeking recipients, amounts, dates, modes and bank details relating to RM1,500,000 stakeholding sum