Having scrutinized the above, I shall now consider the rival contentions of the parties. ISSUE What is the status of a letter marked “without prejudiced” from Messrs. Jummana Law & 10 Partners to Messrs. Jeeva Partnership dated 6 June 2017 (“the without prejudiced letter”) ? In considering this issue, reference is made to the landmark Federal Court case of Malayan Banking Bhd. v. Foo See Moi (1981) 2 MLJ 17, Chang Min Tat FJ delivering the judgment of the court held that : "……It is settled law that letters written without prejudice are inadmissible in evidence of the negotiations attempted. This is in order not to fetter but to enlarge the scope of the negotiations, so that a solution acceptable to both sides can be more easily reached. But it is also settled law that where the negotiations conducted without prejudiced lead to a settlement, then the letters become admissible in evidence of the terms of the agreement, unless of course the agreement has become incorporated in another document which would then be the evidence of the agreement……..” In the case of Abdul Rahim bin Suleiman (suing as the director and minority shareholder of Semangat Motor Sdn Bhd and in the interest of Semangat Motor Sdn Bhd) & Anor v. Faridah bt Md Lazim & Ors (2016) 6 MLJ 449 (CA), the Court of Appeal had reinforced the principle laid down in Malayan Banking Bhd v Foo See Moi (supra), Idrus Harun JCA delivering the judgment of the court stated that : “…..(27) Moving on, we now turn on the second appellant’s 30 days written notice dated 29 January 2013 given in compliance with 11 section 181B(2) of the Act….According to the learned judge, the second appellant’s notice was not intended to be admissible in evidence as it was sent on a “without prejudice” basis. It is necessary to mention that, in fact, learned counsel for the respondents had also submitted before us that the second appellant’s notice of 29 January 2013 was not intended to be admissible due to the marking of “without prejudice”, thereon. With all due respect, even assuming that the learned judge was correct in his decision on this point, His Lordship had failed to consider that as the appellants authored these notices marking them “without prejudiced”, they as authors were entitled to release such marking for litigation and trial purposes. Furthermore, the respondents did not object to such release of “without prejudiced” documents to be used as evidence. In any event, the authority of Malayan Banking Bhd v Foo See Moi [1981] 2 MLJ 17 cited by the learned judge can easily be distinguished from the present action. In that case, the letters written, without prejudice, contained matters relating to negotiations. The Federal Court held that letters written without prejudice were inadmissible in evidence of the negotiations attempted. Thus, clearly the decision by the Federal Court was confined specifically to that type of document which contained the terms of negotiations which must be kept confidential so as not to jeopardise further negotiation. In the instant case, the document before us involved a notice issued pursuant to section 181B(2) which would be used subsequently as evidence of compliance with the statutory requirement that such notice had been used and served on the eighth respondent. Such a marking in our view, could not have been intended to render and in fact would not have caused the notice which was validly issued and relevant for the purpose of the leave application, to be inadmissible. The learned judge’s 12 reasoning on this issue is, in our opinion, wholly misconceived……………” Similarly, in the case of Mazlan Aliman & Anor. v. Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (2016) 1 LNS 971, Hasnah Hashim JCA delivering the judgment of the court held that : “……[10] The main objective of ‘without prejudice’ communication is that in the event the negotiations fail neither party should be able to rely upon any admission made in the course of the aforesaid negotiations. Based on the contents of the four(4) letters dated 10.12.2014 the parties were attempting to settle and to agree to the terms of settlement. However, the Defendant had informed the Plaintiff that the settlement was subject to approval from its Chairman. In the final “without prejudiced” letter to the Plaintiff the Defendant had stated that the parties will proceed to record consent judgment. However, the Plaintiff did not respond to the said letter confirming the intention to record consent judgment. Since it was a “without prejudiced” letter the negotiations were still open and the parties were still at liberty to either further discuss settlement or to proceed with the trial. [11] It is settled law that letters written “without prejudice” are inadmissible in evidence of the negotiation attempted. In our considered view the High Court Judge had applied the correct principles of law when she found that there was no concluded agreement between the parties to record a consent judgment……………." In the course of deciding this application, I have also taken note of the Plaintiff’s counsel submission. To my mind, the counsel’s 13 submission that the Defendants’ objection is premature is without merit and justification. Though I agree with Plaintiff’s counsel in that all material facts must be pleaded, nevertheless strict rules to letters marked “without prejudiced” should be adhered to.