1. ) Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Menteri, Kementerian Komunikasi (Sebelum Ini Dikenali Sebagai Kementerian Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan), Yb Datuk Ahmad Fahmi Bin Mohamed Fadzil (WA-21NCvC-22-03/2025)

Exhibit PN3;

(ii) Exhibit PN5;

(iii) Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Support in Enclosure 10. [4] Exhibit PN3 is a letter from the Defendant signed by its director dated 25.11.2024 that had requested for an extension of time to address the matters raised in the Plaintiff’s letter dated 11.11.2024. It had proposed to an additional period up to the end of 2024 to engage in discussions. It was marked ‘Without Prejudice’. [5] It was in response to the Plaintiff’s demand to repay and settle RM15,000,000 within 30 days for the loan granted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. [6] Exhibit PN5 the Defendant’s solicitor’s reply to the Plaintiff’s solicitor’s notice of demand for RM32,197,347.93 to be repaid within 14 days. Exhibit PN5 requested to hold the matter in abeyance until 30.6.2024. It was also marked ‘Without Prejudice”. [7] Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support are statements on the facts that led to the issuance of the correspondences Exhibit PN3 and Exhibit PN5. [8] The basis for the Defendant’s application to expunge PN3, PN5 and the relevant paragraphs was on the notion that the two letters were marked “Without Prejudice” and thus ought not to be included in the application for a Summary Judgment against it. This Court’s findings [9] Despite Exhibits PN3 and PN5 marked with “Without Prejudice”, the Defendant did not at any time dispute that a debt was owed by it to the Plaintiff. The Defendant had not disputed the repayment terms of the debt but merely had sought an indulgence of time. [10] Exhibits PN3 and PN5 did not reflect any negotiations or discussions for settlement. Therefore, this Court viewed that the mere marking of “Without Prejudice” did not amount to the two letters privileged to disclosure for the purpose of the Plaintiff’s application for Summary Judgment (which was dismissed in any event and this Court had set the case for trial). [11] It was not an occasion where terms of settlement were proposed with parties’ posturing and positioning were illustrated that may prejudiced either party. This Court had considered the following authorities when it decided to dismiss the Defendant’s application to expunge Exhibits PN3, PN5 and the relevant paragraphs in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Support:

Malayan Banking Bhd v Foo See Moi [1981] 2 MLJ 17; [1981] 1 MLRA 641;

(ii) RHB Trustees Berhad v Oilfab Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 5 CLJ 402; [2015] 4 MLRH 73. [12] This Court opined that the prerequisites for Exhibit PN3 and PN5 to attract the shield of “Without Prejudice” were not met. The letters are absent of any suggestions of terms that would finally settle the debt claimed. See East Coast Economic Region Development Council v Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd & Anor and other appeals [2019] 12 MLJ 143; [2019] 5 MLRA 345, Dusun Desaru Sdn Bhd & Anor v Wang Ah Yu & Ors [1999] 5 MLJ 449; [1999] 1 MLRH 397; [1999] 2 CLJ 749. [13] There was no dispute whatsoever of the loan granted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the debt due to the former. Expressly stating “Without Prejudice” does not make the document so. Merely seeking for time as sought for by the Defendant did not qualify the letters to be privileged even though it may carry such title. See Ted Bates (M) Sdn Bhd v Balibir Singh Jholl [1979] 2 MLJ 257; [1976] 1 MLRA 276, Prodeal Sdn Bhd v Kelimis Jaya Sdn Bhd [1999] 3 CLJ 409; [1999] 1 MLRH 628, Wong Nget Thau v Tay Choo Foo [1994] 3 MLJ 723; [1994] 2 MLRH 752; [1994] 4 CLJ 617. [14] All of these were against the backdrop that the Defendant had executed a promissory note to repay the sum of Rm15,000,000 loaned by the Plaintiff, by 1.3.2022. The Defendant had failed to keep its obligation. On 11.11.2024 the Plaintiff issued its demand, to which the Defendant replied for time in Exhibit PN3. Then on 10.2.2025 the Plaintiff’s solicitor issued a formal demand to which the Defendant replied with Exhibit PN5 again seeking an extension of time until 30.6.2025 to repay the debt. [15] These events resulted the Plaintiff to file this case in this Court on 5.3.2025 claiming for the repayment of the debt. The Defendant filed its Defence on 14.4.2025 that now denied its obligation to repay the loan as per the promissory note. The Defendant raised Moneylenders Act 1951, and that its director had not intended to bind the Defendant to the promissory note, as its defence fighting the Plaintiff’s claim. [16] This Court did not find any merits in the Defendant’s contention to allow its application to expunge Exhibits PN3, PN5 and the relevant paragraphs in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Reply. As such, the Defendant’s application was dismissed with costs. With the further dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application for Summary Judgment, this matter has now been set for trial. DATED 24 JULY 2025 ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR. For the Plaintiff: Yeoh Cho Kheong together with Chai Chin Wuen T/n Ranjit Singh & Yeoh For the Defendant: Ragunath Kesavan, Syereen Tang, Cecilia Tan Shee Shia together with Fatin Izyan binti Muhamad Fadzil T/n Soh Hayati & Co.