Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal professional privilege

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

TETUAN RAZIAH & PARTNERS 1. ) ABU HASAN BIN ALI 2. ) HELME BIN HASHIM 3. ) JAMELAH BINTI BAKAR

Citation

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs as heirs were entitled to pre-action disclosure because they demonstrated that the sale agreement and related documents exist, are relevant and material to determine a cause of action, and were likely within the defendant's possession or control; lack of letters of administration and limitation do not defeat a procedural pre-action disclosure application; the requested documents were transactional (not privileged) and disclosure was required in the interests of justice. Consequently the Sessions Court order for disclosure was upheld.
27 Mar 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] CHUAH CHIN HOE

Citation

WA-45B-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45B-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence establishing motive (financial gain and marital discord), exclusive opportunity (accused last seen with deceased, no sign of break-in and CCTV sequence unrebutted), and means (post-mortem asphyxia consistent with smothering and injuries incompatible with CPR); SP15's testimony admissible under s32(1)(a) EA despite s126 privilege because the communicator was deceased; CCTV IDP19 admissible under s51A(5) CPC; defence failed to raise reasonable doubt or provide a plausible explanation under the Last Seen To…
27 Mar 2025

[Timbalan (TPR), Jabatan Peguam Negara] CHUAH CHIN HOE

Citation

WA-45B-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-45B-10-10/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On maximum evaluation the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence establishing motive, exclusive opportunity (accused last seen with deceased), and medical evidence of smothering; admissible testimony of deceased's solicitor and CCTV footage corroborated absence of third-party access; accused failed to give a plausible explanation under the 'last seen together' doctrine; therefore prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and accused convicted of murder under s302 Penal Code.
23 May 2024

Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-24NCC-629-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-629-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave was granted because the plaintiff proved on balance that he acted in good faith (subjective honest belief supported by objective evidence) and there was a prima facie case that the majority directors breached fiduciary duties and that AMSB was unjustly enriched by unsubstantiated management fees; estoppel, delay, privilege, abuse and multiplicity objections failed on the facts; under s.350 the court may grant interim measures and it was appropriate to reduce the management fee to USD8,000/month pending trial.
29 Mar 2024

BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) Sidqi Ahmad Said Bin Ahmad 2. ) Shailen A/l Popatlal 3. ) Wan Alias Bin Wan Ngah 4. ) Roslina Binti Ibrahim 5. ) Abdul Wahid Bin Abdul Ghani 6. ) Mohd Radzi Bin Mohamed 7. ) Muhammad Shazhakim Bin Shaza

Citation

WA-22NCC-264-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-264-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

D2 failed to prove any factual basis warranting disqualification of LCWP; allegations of non-reporting, conflict via shareholding, procurement of improperly favourable consent judgments and need to call LCWP as witnesses were speculative or unsupported by evidence; legal professional privilege and established principles concerning consent judgments, NFA decisions and advocate-witness rules dictate dismissal of the disqualification and disclosure prayers; costs awarded on standard basis (RM10,000 to Plaintiff).
7 Sept 2022

TAN HOO ENG 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) TETUAN SHEARN DELAMORE & CO. 3. ) [TIMBALAN ] 4. ) [Ketua Polis Negara] 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCC-599-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-599-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that AMLATFA seizure/freezing orders, read with the Act's broad definition of 'dealing', lawfully prevented transfers that would have produced the alleged accretions; the Settlement Agreement (Clause 3.2) was a clear, final bar to further claims; the claims were also barred by res judicata/issue estoppel given prior litigation; and claims against Shearn failed because solicitors owe no duty to opposing parties in these circumstances and their advice is privileged — accordingly the originating summons was dismissed.
13 Jul 2020

1. ABDUL RAZAK BIN MOHD ARIS 2. YAP CHEE WEE 3. TAN SOON LEE (Suing as Plaintiffs and as representatives for all purchasers of the development project known as “City of Green”) 1. DATO’ LEE SU HA 2. BJ HOMES DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (623575-W)

Citation

BA-22C-43-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22C-43-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to strike out the suit because the pleaded causes of action against multiple defendants disclosed triable issues and were not plain and obvious; discovery orders were granted where the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory conditions that the documents are in defendants' possession/custody/power and fall within categories in O 24 r 3(4) RC and are necessary for fair disposal or saving costs; claims to legal professional privilege were preserved for determination at trial and privileged documents were ordered to remain undisclosed pending the trial court's adjudication of privil…
13 May 2020

Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors

Citation

W-02(IM)(MUA)-1082-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(MUA)-1082-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court discovery order and held that the DSA was solicitor work-product in MDV's possession, remained a privileged draft not disclosed to the counterparty, privilege had not been waived by mere knowledge of terms, and the DSA was not relevant or necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings given respondents' pleaded case relied on correspondence and discussions rather than the draft; accordingly discovery was refused.
1 Jan 1900

M WEALTH CORRIDOR SDN. BHD. (Company No: 1143510-P) 1. BJ PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 910256-V) 2. LIM SOON PENG (NRIC No.: 550225-10-5177) 3. ONG TEE KEAT (NRIC No: 561122-10-5557) 4. CHAN TSE YUEN (NRIC No: 520423-05-5097)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-468-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-468-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Both applications (Encl.31 for interrogatories and Encl.32 for discovery) were dismissed because the interrogatories sought were a fishing expedition, not necessary to fairly dispose of the cause or save costs, and the discovery requests were overly broad, nonspecific, not shown to be in defendants' possession/custody/power and in some respects privileged; therefore leave and discovery were refused and costs awarded to defendants.