Ate Solution Sdn. Bhd. v Pharn Kai Yee (BA-12ANCC-23-08/2023)

(iv) to act in the good faith and in the best interests of the company. [2] However, the immediate issue before this Court relates to an interlocutory matter, that is, whether the Sessions Court had acted correctly when it expunged 51 of the Plaintiff’s documents. The Sessions Court had agreed with the Defendant that these 51 documents were obtained illegally and/or without complying with the proper procedure, that it, through Order 24 of the Rules of Court, 2012. [3] After hearing the appeal, save for the decision on costs (which was costs in the cause), the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge to expunge the 51 documents was set aside by this Court on 27 February,

[4] The Defendant has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 22 March, 2024, seeking leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against my decision. [5] My full grounds of judgment in reversing the learned Sessions Court’s decision to expunge 51 of the Plaintiff’s documents are set out below. The Underlying Issues [6] In this appeal, the issues for determination are:

whether the documents had been obtained illegality;

if the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether the documents are nevertheless still admissible; and

whether documents are relevant to the Appellant/Plaintiff and/or to this suit. The Parties and the Outcome of the Interlocutory Application at the Sessions Court [7] The Plaintiff (Appellant here) in the Sessions Court is ATE Solution Sdn Bhd while the Defendant (Respondent here) in the Sessions Court is Pharn Kai Yee. [8] The allegations hurled by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the main action are, inter alia, breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duties as the director of the Plaintiff. [9] In an interlocutory application, the Defendant succeeded in expunging the Plaintiff’s 51 documents on the grounds that first, the Plaintiff did not invoke the procedure in Order 24 and/or Order 26 of the Rules of Court, 2012 to obtain the said impugned documents; second, the impugned documents were irrelevant and third, the said documents were obtained illegality. [10] The learned Sessions Court Judge reasoned as follows: LATARBELAKANG KES Ini adalah rayuan Perayu/Plaintif terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini bertarikh 3/8/2023 yang membenarkan Notis Permohonan Defendan (Lampiran 13) dengan kos dalam kausa. Mahkamah telah meneliti Notis Permohonan, Afidavit-afidavit, hujahan bertulis dan otoriti kedua-dua pihak. Alasan Mahkamah membenarkanLampiran 13 adalah seperti berikut: [1] Notis Permohonan Lampiran 13 adalah permohonan Defendan di bawah Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah 2012 dan/atau bidangkuasa sedia ada Mahkamah untuk satu perintah bahawa: a) Satu perintah bahawa dokumen-dokumen di bilangan 2, 7, 11, 12,13,14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27,28,29,30, 31,32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 dan 68 Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif dibatalkan dan/atau dikeluarkan dan/atau dibuang (expunge) daripada kertas-kertas kausa Mahkamah bagi tujuan perbicaraan Mahkamah ini; b) Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; c) Apa-apa perintah selanjutnya atau selainnya yang difikirkan patut dan adil oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. [2] Alasan permohonan Defendan adalah seperti dinyatakan dalam affidavit sokongan Lampiran 14 yang mana antara lain menyatakan bahawa: a) Defendan mendakwa Plaintif mendapatkan dokumendokumen tersebut tanpa kebenaran Defendan dan/atau mencuri dokumen-dokumen peribadi Defendan yang berkaitan dengan perniagaan yang dimilik secara tunggal oleh Defendan iaitu STP Industrial Supply yang Defendan tubuhkan sejak 2013. b) Dokumen-dokumen tersebut juga adalah merangkumi dokumen-dokumen antara STP Industrial Supply dan pembekal-pembekal perniagaan Defendan dan resit-resit perniagaan Defendan. c) Dokumen-dokumen tersebut adalah seperti dalam eksibit “PKY-2”. d) Defendan telah membuat laporan polis pada 5/5/2023 sebagaimana dalam eksibit “PKY-3”. e) Defendan menyatakan bahawa dokumen-dokumen yang dinyatakan tidak berkait dengan Plaintif dan tidak releven dengan tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan. Defendan menyatakan bahawa STP Industrial Supply bukan pihak dalam tindakan di sini. … [14] Oleh demikian, berbalik semula kepada isu berbangkit, melalui Perenggan 6 di Lampiran 16 afidavit jawapan Plaintif, Plaintif sendiri mengakui bahawa dokumen-dokumen tersebut termasuk resit-resit yang dinyatakan adalah milik Defendan dan berkait dengan perniagaan Defendan semata. [15] Jika benar, adakah Plaintif telah mendapat persetujuan atau keizinan Defendan untuk mengemukakan dokumen tersebut? Adakah Plaintif berhak berbuat demikian walaupun tanpa kebenaran atau keizinan tuanpunya jika sekalipun dokumen-dokumen tersebut amat berguna bagi Plaintif dalam membuktikan dakwaan mereka? [16] Dalam affidavit Defendan, mereka mengaku tidak pernah memberi keizinan atau dimaklumkan tentang perkara ini. Dokumen-dokumen tersebut diperolehi tanpa izin dan tidak sah. Defendan juga mendakwa dokumen-dokumen tersebut telah dicuri daripada milikan Defendan dan oleh sebab itu, Defendan telah membuat laporan polis pada 5/5/2023 sebagaimana dalam eksibit “PKY-3”. [17] Pada peringkat ini, Mahkamah dapati bahawa Defendan merasakan hak mereka telah diprejudiskan. Jika benar sekalipun dokumendokumen tersebut adalah relevan dalam tindakan ini, pada hemat Mahkamah, ia boleh dibuat melalui cara sepatutnya seperti proses Penzahiran dan pemeriksaan dokumen (Discovery) atau Interogatori di bawah Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012. … [18] Isu seterusnya – adakah dokumen-dokumen tersebut relevan dan berkait dengan tuntutan Plaintif di sini? [19] Adalah tidak dipertikaikan dan menjadi fakta dipersetujui bahawa dokumen-dokumen dan resit-resit yang dinyatakan adalah berhubung transaksi syarikat STP Industrial Supply yang dimiliki secara tunggal oleh Defendan dan ditubuhkan oleh Defendan sejak 2013. [20] Ia juga melibatkan transaksi dan urusniaga antara STP Industrial Supply dengan Pembekal-pembekal mereka. Kedua-dua STP Industrial Supply dan pembekal-pembekal bukanlah pihak dalam tindakan di sini dan tuntutan Plaintif hanya terhadap Defendan semata-mata. [21] Plaintif berhujah bahawa peruntukan seksyen 7 – 9 Akta Keterangan 1950 terpakai dalam keadaan ini dan menyatakan bahawa penerimaan sesuatu dokumen adalah isu undang-undang. Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan ini. Walaupun begitu, terdapat juga peruntukan yang perlu diteliti sebagai contoh bagaimana sesuatu bukti atau dokumen diperolehi? Mahkamah akur dengan keputusan Mahkamah Atasan dalam kes DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & ANORTHER APPEAL [2015] 2 MLJ 293 sebagaimana dirujuk oleh pihak Plaintif tetapi dalam tindakan ini, Mahkamah merasakan adalah lebih tepat jika Plaintif mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen tersebut melalui prosedur yang betul dan diperuntukan dalam kaedah sebagaimana Mahkamah nyatakan sebelum ini. [22] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD v. API-API AQUACULTURE SDN BHD [2015] 1 LNS 65 yang memutuskan perkara yang sama seperti berikut: “(c) the rule that illegally obtained evidence is admissible provided that such evidence is relevant to the case, is also applicable to civil cases. … [23] Walaupun jelas isu penerimaan dokumen yang diperolehi secara tidak sah ini diputuskan sebelum-sebelum ini, Mahkamah berpandangan bahawa dalam kes sivil terutama melibatkan kes di hadapan kita sekarang, dokumen-dokumen yang dinyatakan adalah tidak mustahil boleh diperolehi oleh Plaintif. Apa yang perlu adalah cara sepatutnya bagi mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut (sebagaimana ada diperuntukkan dalam kaedah dan aturan Mahkamah) jika Plaintif merasakan dokumen-dokumen tersebut adalah penting bagi membuktikan tuntutan mereka. [24] Mahkamah masih mempunyai budibicara dalam hal ini. Tambahan pula, walaupun keterangan yang diperolehi secara tidak sah diterima sebagai sebahagian keterangan, Mahkamah masih mempunyai kuasa samada akan menerima atau menolak keterangan tersebut (weight of such evidence) kelak. [25] Mahkamah merujuk keputusan kes MUHIBBAH ENGINEERING

(M) SDN. BHD / ANN BEE (M) SDN BHD V. SEE HONG SENG [2006] 2 LNS 0396 di mana dinyatakan: “One last matter, raised by the company's counsel, needs to be addressed. Certain property, to wit, documents found in CLB, had definitely been illegally obtained. No doubt the general rule is that they would nevertheless be admissible in evidence. But to this general rule there certainly would be exceptions, one of which, I think, would be in the area of employer-employee dispute hearings before the Industrial Court which conducts its proceedings pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1967, a statute which specifically requires the Court to act according to equity, good conscience and substantial merits (see Section 30(5)). A servant steals from his master certain documents which he later uses in the Industrial Court against his master. The servant, in these circumstances, does not come to Court with clean hands. Nul prenda advantage de son tort demesne (No one shall take advantage of his own wrong). The Court, being guided by good conscience (section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967) would be constrained not only to reject such illegally obtained evidence but also to look on the claimant's testimony with doubt, he being a confirmed hoarder of his master's property, if not the thief. [26] Walaupun Plaintif dalam hujahan mereka menafikan dokumendokumen tersebut diperolehi dengan cara tidak sah, adalah tidak dipertikaikan bahawa dokumen-dokumen tersebut adalah dokumen milikan Defendan atau syarikat STP Industrial Supply yang mana dimiliki secara tunggal oleh Defendan dan ia diperolehi tanpa pengetahuan dan/atau keizinan Defendan atau syarikat STP Industrial Supply. [27] Satu perkara lagi yang Mahkamah jelas adalah bahawa sepanjang Notis Permohonan ini atau affidavit-afidavit yang difailkan, walaupun dipertikaikan cara Plaintif mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen tersebut, Plaintif atau deponent kepada affidavit tidak pernah menjelaskan bagaimana beliau/Plaintif mendapatkan dokumendokumen berkenaan. [28] Ini amat penting kerana semasa mendeposkan sesuatu affidavit, pengakuan deponent bahawa maklumat dan dokumen yang dinyatakan adalah dari pengetahuan peribadi atau rekod yang mana deponent mempunyai akses kepadanya. Oleh demikian, adakah pendeponen Yap Choon Koon mempunyai pengetahuan peribadi atau akses kepada dokumen-dokumen berkenaan atau telah diberi keizinan/kuasa untuk mengemukakan dokumen-dokumen tersebut? [29] Apabila terdapat kaedah dan peruntukan yang telah ditetapkan, adalah lebih wajar, adil dan munasabah bagi pihak-pihak dalam pertikaian mematuhi peruntukan sedia ada. [30] Adalah menjadi tugas Plaintif untuk buktikan dakwaan mereka dan Defendan membela tuntutan tersebut. Mahkamah pula dengan bidangkuasa yang ada haruslah memastikan keadilan dapat diberikan dengan cara yang betul dan tidak memprejudiskan manamana pihak terlibat. [31] Oleh demikian, secara kesimpulannya, Mahkamah membenarkan Notis Permohonan Defendan (Lampiran 13) dengan kos dalam kausa. The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal [11] In this appeal, the Plaintiff reiterated the arguments it had raise before the Sessions Court that the expunged documents were relevant for purposes of the main action. [12] It was also contended by the Plaintiff in this appeal that the Sessions Court Judge had erred in allowing the Defendant’s application to expunge the disputed documents on the reason that those documents were obtained illegality and/or the Plaintiff had failed to obtain the permission of the Defendant before producing them. [13] The Plaintiff referred this Court to section 5 – 9 of the Evidence Act 1950, Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Api-Api Aquaculture Sdn Bhd [2015] 3 AMR 811; [2015] 1 LNS 65; [2015] MLJU 2359; [2015] MLRHU 1342 (“Api-Api Aquaculture”) and Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor & Anor Appeal [2015] 2 MLJ 293; [2015] 1 MLRA 609 to support its contention in the preceding paragraph. [14] Unsurprisingly, the Defendant adopted the position that the learned Sessions Court Judge had not erred when she allowed the Defendant’s application in Enclosure 13 at the Sessions Court to expunge the 51 documents. [15] In response to the authorities cited by the Plaintiff in paragraph [10] above, the Defendant cited the case of Muhibbah Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd/Ann Bee (M) Sdn Bhd v See Hong Seng [2006] 2 LNS 0396; [2006] ILJU 105; [2006] 4 MELR 336 which alluded to the adage that “no one shall take advantage of his own wrong”. [16] The Defendant further referred to Order 41 rule 5(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 and submitted that: Perayu di dalam Afidavit Jawapan telah gagal untuk menjelaskan bagaimana Perayu memperoleh dokumen-dokumen tersebut dan/atau mengemukakan rekod-rekod atau akses-akses yang menunjukkan bahawa YeapChoon Kang mempunyai akses-akses terhadap dokumen-dokumen tersebut. Ini jelas sekali menunjukkan bahawa ianya merupakan suatu keterangan dengar cakap (hearsay). [17] On this aspect of the alleged non-compliance with this provision relating to the contents of affidavit, the Defendant also cited the following cases, namely, Amlnvestment Bank Bhd v NEP Holdings (M) Bhd [2013] 1 LNS 348; [2014] 8 MLJ 271; [2013] MLRHU 334 and Empire Holdings Ltd v Ithmaar Development Company Ltd & Ors [2023] 1 LNS 611; [2023] MLJU 651; [2023] MLRHU 519. The Law and Applicable Principles [18] For ease of reference, the provisions of both the Evidence Act 1950 and the Rules of Court 2012 are reproduced below. [19] Section 5 – 9 of the Evidence Act 1950 provide as follows:

Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened or which afforded an opportunity of their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct

Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if the conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. Explanation 1 - The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act. Explanation 2 - When the conduct of any person is relevant any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing which affects his conduct is relevant.

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant so far as they are necessary for that purpose. [20] As for the Rules of the Court 2012, the pertinent provisions are as follows: Order for discovery (O. 24, r. 3)

3.

Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rules 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party. Discovery by interrogatories (O. 26, r. 1)

1.

A party to any cause or matter may apply in Form 44 to the Court for an order —

giving him leave to serve on any other party interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the applicant and that other party in the cause or matter; and

requiring that other party to answer the interrogatories on affidavit within a specific period of time which shall not be less than fourteen days from the date of service of the interrogatories.

A copy of the proposed interrogatories in Form 45 shall be served together with the application for such leave.

On the hearing of an application under this rule, the Court shall give leave as to such only of the interrogatories as it considers necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs; and in deciding whether to give leave, the Court shall take into account any offer made by the party to be interrogated to give particulars or to make admissions or to produce documents relating to any matter in question.

A proposed interrogatory which does not relate to such a matter as is mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be disallowed notwithstanding that it might be admissible in oral cross-examination of a witness.

If an order is made, it shall be in Form 46 and shall be served by the applicant on the party against whom it is made.

Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit in Form 47 and the affidavit shall be filed and a copy thereof served on the party interrogating within the time specified in the order. Contents of affidavit (O. 41 r. 5)

5.

Subject to Order 14, rules 2(2) and 4(2), to paragraph (2) of this rule and to anyorder made under Order 38, rule 3, an affidavit may contain only such facts as thedeponent is able of his own knowledge to prove.

An affidavit sworn for the purpose of being used in interlocutory proceedings may contain statements of information of belief with the sources and grounds hereof.” Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92, r. 4)

For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. [21] On the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, in addition to Api-Api Aquaculture”) and Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor & Anor Appeal, as cited by the parties, this Court would add Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nuctech Company Limited & Anor [2019] AMEJ 0768; [2019] CLJU 1006; [2019] MLJU 700 and Quantum Petroleum (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Manimaran Periasamy & Ors [2020] AMEJ 0535; [2020] CLJU 524; [2020] MLJU 689; 2020] 1 MLRHU 498. The Decision of this Court [22] On the issue of whether the 51 documents were relevant to the present proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that they relevant to support the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant has breached his fiduciary duties and responsibilities as a director of the Plaintiff. [23] As for the defence raised by the Defendant that the documents relate to a “non-party” to the proceedings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, that is, STP Industrial Supply and that the Plaintiff is not privy to the relationship between the Defendant and STP Industrial Supply, it is this Court’s decision that since the Defendant has admitted in his defence that he had set up STP Industrial Supply, the documents which the Defendants had sought to expunge are relevant for establishing the Plaintiff’s contention in its main action that the Defendant had set up STP Industrial Supply in direct competition with the Plaintiff and this amount to a breach of his fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff. The ground raised by the Defendant is misconceived and the cases cited thereto on orders that cannot be made against a non-party are irrelevant. [24] Even assuming that the impugned documents were illegally obtained by the Plaintiff, the long line of authorities in this country have established that it is immaterial how and in what manner the evidence was obtained, but the relevancy of the evidence. Our courts have rejected the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the learned Sessions Court Judge acknowledged this point when she concluded that she “akur dengan keputusan Mahkamah Atasan” when dealing with this point. [25] The Supreme Court case of Ramli bin Kechik v Public Prosecutor [1986] CLJ Rep 243; [1986] 1CLJ 308 (a case cited by the Defendant in his written submission in reply) is of no assistance to the Defendant as this decision laid down the twin requirements of relevancy and admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, both of which have been fulfilled in this case. [26] The learned Sessions Court Judge has erred when she proceeded to follow Muhibbah Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd v See Hong Seng [2006] 2 LNS 0396, a decision of the Industrial Court where section 30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 requires it to “act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal form”. [27] It is evident that the learned Sessions Court Judge was fixated to the notion of the need to utilize of the procedure laid own in Order 24 and/or Order 26 of the Rules of Court, 2012 before it could tender the 51 documents. [28] This Court is of the considered view that the likes of Order 24 and Order 26 are to aid a party and not mandatory provisions that must be invoke (see Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021, Volume 1 at para 24/3/1 and para 26/1/2). [29] As for the submission by the Defendant that there was non-compliance with Order 41 rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2012, that is, failure on the part of the Plaintiff in its Affidavit in Reply to state the grounds or sources from which it has obtained the records and/or documents, this Court takes the view it only goes to the weight to be given to the affidavit evidence. [30] In view of the above findings, save for the decision on costs (which was costs in the cause), the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge to expunge the 51 documents is hereby set aside. Dated: 1 May, 2024 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Ng Kher Shin for the Appellant (Messrs. Liz Yap & Ng Chambers) Muhammad Khairuddin bin Annuar for the Respondent (Messrs. Yoon & Partners)