YONG SYET CHIN (Berniaga atas nama dan gaya YSC Machinery Trading) v SURESH A/L SUBRAMANIAM (Menurut dalam kapasiti pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers) (BA-24NCvC-488-02/2025)

The Originating Summons dated 08.09.2025 (hereinafter referred to as "Enclosure 1") filed before this Honourable Court seeks the following reliefs and/or prayers against the Defendant:

Satu deklarasi bahawa komunikasi melalui "WhatsApp" di antara Suresh A/L Subramaniam pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan Heng Yan Han Pengurus Am YSC Machinery Trading (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 002542893- T) 21 Julai 2021 sehingga September 2022 yang terkandung di dalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama bertarikh 07.07.2023 (Lampiran 8) di bawah Guaman Civil No.: BB-A72NCvC-208- 02/2023 dan Guaman Civil No.: BB-A52NCvC-139- 07/2024 adalah dokumen terlindung "privileged documents" berdasarkan Seksyen 126 Akta Keterangan 1950;

Satu deklarasi bahawa komunikasi melalui "WhatsApp" di antara Suresh A/L Subramaniam pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan Heng Yan Han Pengurus Am YSC Machinery Trading (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 002542893- T) dari 21 Julai 2021 sehingga September 2022 yang terkandung di dalam Ikatan Dokumen Plaintiff (Lampiran 27) di bawah Guaman Civil No.: BBA52NCvC-139-07/2024 bertarikh 02.01.2025 adalah dokumen terlindung "privileged documents" berdasarkan Seksyen 126 Akta Keterangan 1950;

Satu perintah injuksi bahawa Defendan dilarang untuk mendedahkan, menggunakan, menghasilkan semula dan melakukan apa-apa terhadap komunikasi yang telah berlaku antara Suresh A/L Subramaniam pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan Heng Yan Han Pengurus Am YSC Machinery Trading (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 002542893-T) termasuk komunikasi "WhatsApp" di antara Suresh A/L Subramaniam pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan Heng Yan Han Pengurus Am YSC Machinery Trading (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan: 002542893-T) dari 21 Julai 2021 sehingga September 2022 yang terkandung di dalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Lampiran 8) dan Ikatan Dokumen Plaintiff (Lampiran 27) bertarikh 02.01.2025;

Pembayaran balik yuran guaman sebanyak RM64,800.00 oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif bagi Bil No. 3591 dan Bill No. 3594 yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh Plaintiff akibat pendedahan komunikasi terlindung oleh Defendan;

Komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah difailkan oleh pihak Plaintif secara elektronik dibatalkan dan dipadamkan daripada rekod Mahkamah Majistret Petaling Jaya dan Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya;

Komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah difailkan oleh pihak Plaintif secara elektronik dikecualikan untuk digunakan dalam apa apa prosiding;

Komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah difailkan oleh pihak Plaintif secara elektronik disekat daripada carian, muat turun dan paparan dalam dan dari sistem EFS dan/atau sistem eCourts;

Sementara menunggu pelupusan Saman Pemula ini, Lampiran 8 dan Lampiran 27 dan/atau komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah dirujuk dan/atau digunapakai oleh pihak Defendan didalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama dan Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif disekat daripada carian, muat turun dan paparan dalam dan dari EFS sistem dan/atau eCourts;

Sementara menunggu pelupusan Saman Pemula ini, Lampiran 8 dan Lampiran 27 dan/atau komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah dirujuk dan/atau digunapakai oleh pihak Defendan didalam Ikatan Dokumen Bersama dan Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif dikecualikan untuk digunakan dalam apa-apa prosiding; Suresh a/l Subramaniam yang merupakan pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan/atau peguam Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers berikrar dan memfailkan ke Mahkamah dan menyampaikan suatu Afidavit kepada peguamcara Plaintif yang memberikan butiran-butiran penuh kesemua individu atau pihak kepada siapa Suresh a/l Subramaniam dan/atau peguam Tetuan S.Suresh Chambers telah menyebarkan Lampiran 8 dan Lampiran 27 termasuk tarikh dan masa penyebaran dalam tempoh dua (2) hari selepas disampaikan dengan perintah ini;

Suresh a/l Subramaniam yang merupakan pemilik tunggal Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers dan/atau peguam Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers berikrar dan memfailkan ke Mahkamah dan menyampaikan suatu Afidavit kepada peguamcara Plaintif bahawa Suresh a/l Subramaniam dan/atau peguam Tetuan S. Suresh law Chambers dan/atau Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers tidak akan menggunakan, menyebarkan dan/atau melakukan apa-apa kepada komunikasi "WhatsApp" yang telah berlaku antara Heng Yan Han dan Suresh a/l Subramaniam dari 21 Julai 2021 sehingga September 2022 termasuk komunikasi-komunikasi lain yang telah berlaku antara Heng Yan Han dan Suresh a/l Subramaniam dalam tempoh dua (2) hari selepas disampaikan dengan perintah ini;

Prosiding permohonan ini dirahsiakan dan kesemua kertaskertas kausa yang telah difailkan berhubung dengan permohonan ini disekat daripada carian, muat turun dan paparan dalam dan dari sistem EFS dan/atau sistem eCourts dan hanya boleh diakses oleh pemfail dan pihak Plaintif sahaja dan tidak memprejudiskan hak Plaintif untuk merujuk dan/atau menggunakan kertas-kertas kausa yang berkaitan dengan permohonan ini dalam tindakan tatatertib yang telah dimulakan terhadap Suresh a/I Subramaniam dan Tetuan S. Suresh Law Chambers;

Pihak Defendan memfailkan satu permohonan di Mahkamah Majistret Petaling Jaya Guaman Civil No.: BB-A72NCvC-208-02/2023, Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya Guaman Civil No.: BB-A52NCvC-139-07/2024 dan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Guaman Civil No.: WA-22NCC-557-12/2021 untuk komunikasi "WhatsApp" (Lampiran 8, 27 dan 225) yang difailkan didalam sistem EFS dan/atau sistem eCourts disekat daripada carian, muat turun dan paparan dalam dan dari sistem eCourts;

Ganti rugi am;

Relif-relif lain atau perintah-perintah yang selanjutnya yang dianggap patut dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Cause papers

The following cause papers are filed with this Honourable Court: a) Originating Summons dated 28.02.2025 ("Enclosure 1"); b) Affidavit in Support deposed by Heng Yan Han dated 28.02.2025 ("Enclosure 2"); c) Volume II dated 28.02.2025 ("Enclosure 3"); d) Volume III dated 28.02.2025 ("Enclosure 4"); e) Affidavit in Answer deposed by Suresh a/l Subramaniam dated 17.10.2025 ("Enclosure 28"); f) Affidavit in Reply deposed by Heng Yan Han dated 04.11.2025 ("Enclosure 29"); g) Affidavit in Reply deposed by Suresh a/l Subramaniam dated 19.11.2025 ("Enclosure 31"); h) Affidavit in Answer deposed by Heng Yan Han dated 03.12.2025 ("Enclosure 34"). Events that unfolded

These events had transpired that led to filing of Enclosure 1 by the Plaintiff: DateChronology14.06.2021The Plaintiff appointed SSLC to represent and/or act for the Plaintiff in an action initiated by The One Minerals Mining Sdn Bhd and its director, Yaw Choon Kit, against the Plaintiff in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur, Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCC-557-12/2021 (“Suit 557”).09.08.2022SSLC subsequently obtained an order to discharge itself from further representing and/or acting on behalf of the Plaintiff in Suit 557 due to a dispute over legal fees. The Plaintiff alleged that its representative had paid a total of RM180,000.00 in legal fees to SSLC, whereas SSLC and the Defendant alleged that only RM20,000.00 was paid, and there remained outstanding legal fees to be settled by the Plaintiff and/or its representative.24.02.2023SSLC then initiated a civil action in the Magistrates' Court at Petaling Jaya, Civil Suit No.: BB-A72NCvC-208-02/2023 (“Suit 208”), against the Plaintiff to recover the alleged outstanding legal fees amounting to RM40,462.00. In response, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of RM180,000.00 and/or any balance due to the Plaintiff after deducting the legal fees to which SSLC may be entitled.07.07.2023SSLC unilaterally filed a copy of the “Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents” (“Enclosure 8”) in the Magistrates' Court.12.12.2023The Plaintiff then appointed Messrs Rabinder Budiman & Associates (“RBA”) to act for and/or represent the Plaintiff in Suit 208, and a Notice of Change of Solicitors was duly filed in the Magistrates' Court.05.02.2025The Plaintiff also filed an application to transfer Suit 208 from the Magistrates' Court to the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court, on the basis that the Plaintiff's counterclaim exceeded the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court.23.04.2024Suit 208 was accordingly transferred to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya and registered as Civil Suit No.: BB-A52NCvC-139-07/2024 (“Civil Suit 139”).02.01.2025SSLC then, for a second time, unilaterally filed a copy of the “Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents” (“Enclosure 27”) in the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya.27.01.2025A third party, Messrs Palany Fairus & Adib Chambers, extracted Enclosure 27 from the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya and filed an application in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur to adduce WhatsApp communications between the Plaintiff's representative and/or authorised person, Mr. Heng Yan Han, and SSLC, spanning the period from 21 July 2021 to September 2022. This application was made in relation to Civil Suit No.:WA-22NCC-557-12/2021("Suit 557"), in which they act for Yaw Foo Hoe, Yaw Choon Kit, Chow Sok Fui, and The One Minerals Mining Sdn Bhd.Further distribution of the said WhatsApp communication was then made by the third party to seven(7) other individuals who were parties to Suit 557, namely Chow Sok Fui, Ting Tin Ching, Chong Lee Ying, Seow Weng Jin, Chaye Muk Leng, Leong Kai Hsein, and Tan Suet Mooi.As those individuals were represented and/or had counsel acting for them in Suit 557, further distribution was made by the third party to Messrs S H Goh & Partners, Messrs Y F Chan, and Messrs Nith Gowri Lachman & Partners.05.02.2025Ong Chee Kwan J dismissed the third party's application to adduce the said WhatsApp communications between the Plaintiff's representative and SSLC.

28.02.2025Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed Enclosure 1, an Originating Summons against the Defendant, SSLC, and its employees and solicitors involved in the production, disclosure, and distribution of the said WhatsApp communications.20.03.2025The Defendant instructed SSLC (his firm) to file a Notice of Appointment of Solicitors (“Enclosure 6”). Upon receiving this, the Plaintiff's solicitor wrote to SSLC and directed the Defendant to appoint an independent law firm. The Defendant was given one (1) week from the date of the said letter to provide written confirmation of the steps taken to do so.21.03.2025SSLC, through its solicitor and/or employee, sought one (1) week from the Honourable Court to confirm whether the Defendant intended to proceed with the main action through SSLC or to appoint an independent law firm.28.03.2025SSLC later confirmed to the Honourable Court that the Defendant intended to proceed with the main action through SSLC. The Court then directed the Plaintiff's solicitor to file the relevant disqualification application on or before 23.04.2025.10.04.2025SSLC then, for the third time, unilaterally filed a copy of the “Common Bundle of Documents” (“Enclosure 34”) in the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya.

22.04.2025The Plaintiff thereafter filed Enclosure 8, a disqualification application to disqualify SSLC from acting for and/or representing the Defendant in the main suit.13.05.2025The Plaintiff's solicitor, who is also acting in Suit 557, received a copy of the "Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents" from Messrs Palany Fairus & Adib Chambers, the same third party that previously attempted to introduce the WhatsApp communications in Suit 557 after their earlier attempt had failed.19.05.2025The Plaintiff's solicitor then wrote to the Court objecting to the inclusion of the WhatsApp communications in Suit 677.21.05.2025As of this date, the said WhatsApp communications have not been filed in Suit 677 by the third party, as no direction was given by Dato' Akhtar bin Tahir J on the matter. Since Dato' Akhtar bin Tahir J was set to retire in December 2025, the direction for the filing of the pre-trial Common Bundle is to be determined by another Judge.26.08.2025Pre-trial Case Management fixed before the new Judge Dato' Anand Ponnudurai for Suit 677, which led to the dismissal of the 3rd party's application to include the WhatsApp communication in Suit 677 due to privilege and relevancy issue.

17.09.2025Azmi bin Abdullah J allowed Plaintiff's disqualification application via Enclosure 817.10.2025Filing of the New Common Bundle of Document by the Defendant for Suit No.: 139 at the Sessions Court known as "Court Copy" Enclosure 37 containing redacted WhatsApp communication between Mr. Heng Yan Han and the Defendant. The Law pertaining to Professional Communication pursuant to Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950

Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 states: Professional communications 126. (1) No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure-

any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;

any fact observed by any advocate in the course of his employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of the advocate was or was not directed to the fact by or on behalf of his client Explaination - The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased The Federal Court case of Dato' Anthony See Teow Guan v See Teow Chuan & Anor [2009] MLJU 97 held: This section provides that no advocate shall at any time be permitted to disclose any communication made to him by or on behalf of his client for the purpose of his employment unless the client gives his express consent. It also extends to any advice given by him to his client. In the case of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other appeals [2007] 2 SLR 367 the Singapore Court of Appeal observed on section 128 of the Singapore Evidence Act (which is in pari materia with section 126 of the Act) as follows (as summarized in the Head note): "In Singapore, legal professional privilege was (sic) a statutory right enacted in ss 128 and 131 of the Act. As the Act was modelled on the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), which itself had its roots in English law, the court would need to refer to English decisions in order to determine the scope of the said provisions as well as the current state of the law, while bearing in mind that not all English law principles could be used for this purpose as a result of s 2(2) of the Act." At p 382 paragraph 32 the court commented: 'As is evident from its language, s 128 applies only to an advocate or solicitor, but not to the client. He may not (a) disclose any communication made to him by or on behalf of his client, or (b) state the contents or condition of any document of which he has become "acquainted", or (c) disclose any advice given by him to his client, if all these 8 events occurred "in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate or solicitor"." With respect, I do not agree. I agree with the appellant that the Court of Appeal, in taking the "loss of confidentiality" approach to determine loss of privilege, had failed to recognise the common law maxim "once privileged, always privileged" (see per Cockburn, CJ in Bullock & Co v Corry & Co [1878] 3 QBD 356 at p 358) as being embodied in sections 126 to 129 of the Act. This common law maxim has been endorsed and approved by the high authority of the House of Lords and Privy Council in the cases quoted earlier where the privilege was accepted as being absolute. The maxim has hitherto been followed in Malaysia as seen in the High Court case of Dato' Au Ba Chi v Koh Keng Kheng [1989] 3 MLJ 445 which was adopted by the learned trial judge in the present case. Relying on the wording of section 126 of the Act, Eusoff Chin J (as he then was) in Dato' Au Ba's case held the maxim 'once privileged always privileged' applied. The court said at p 447: "Section 126 also says that the legal adviser shall not be permitted at any time to disclose professional communications. It is said that a communication once privileged is 'always privileged' (per Cockburn CJ in Bullock v Corry & Co )." It may be noted that Dato' Au Ba's case went on appeal to the then Supreme Court and the High Court's decision was upheld but unfortunately there was no written judgment of the Supreme Court. Hence, the importance of this decision. Hence I hold that the legal professional privilege under section 126 of the Act is absolute and it remains so until waived by the privilege holder, i.e. the client. Based on the above stated principle read together with Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 it can be concluded:

Any communication, document and/or advice exchanged between solicitor and client in the course of professional engagement is privileged and prohibited from disclosure, unless there is express waiver by the client;

The privilege is absolute, continuing even after the employment has ceased and is only displaced in circumstances of illegality, crime or fraud Court's considerations

This Court observes:

1 There existed a solicitor-client relationship between Plaintiff, Defendant and SSLC, as the Defendant and SSLC had represented and/or acted and/or advised the Plaintiff and its representative Mr. Heng Yan Han in High Court Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCVC-677-10/2021 ("Civil Suit 677");

2 Pursuant to above stated representation from 14.06.2021 until 09.08.2022, by the Defendant and SSLC, the Defendant and SSLC and representative (employees and solicitors) of SSLC obtained privileged and confidential information from Plaintiff's representative, Mr. Heng Yan Han;

3 As Mr. Heng Yan Han was authorised by the Plaintiff i.e, the wife, who is the sole proprietor of YSC Machinery Trading to communicate and provide all confidential and privilege information to the Defendant and SSLC due to the representation and/or acting of the Defendant and SSLC as the Plaintiff's solicitor in Suit 677;

4 The Defendant, SSLC and its representative (its employees and solicitors) had then used this confidential and privileged information via WhatsApp messages which transpired between Mr. Heng Yan Han dated 21 July 2021 until September 2022 the Defendant had in fact produced, disclosed and distributed the same to not only the Plaintiff but to other third parties which inevitably led to the filing of the Originating Summons against the Defendant as the Sole Proprietor of SSLC, SSLC and its representatives (employees and solicitors);

5 The Plaintiff had produced the evidence before this Honourable Court through Exhibit HYH-4 that the Defendant has intentionally without exercising proper care exposed all the confidential and privileged information and/or communication between Plaintiff and the Defendant by filing the same to the e-Courts, turning the documents into public documents;

6 The damage done by the Defendant, SSLC and its representative (its employees and solicitors) are irreversible as 3rd party Messrs Palany Fairus & Adib Chambers had filed said document and/or WhatsApp to the High Court of Kuala Lumpur based on extraction of the same from Civil Suit No. BB-A52NCvC-139-07/2024 filed by the Defendant and SSLC against the Plaintiff in Petaling Jaya Sessions Court;

7 This filing known as Additional Bundle of Documents [Exhibit Y-1] was then forwarded by Messrs Palany Fairus & Adib Chambers to Messrs SH Goh and Messrs YF Chan and 9 other individual (Chow Sok Fui, Ting Tin Ching, Chong Lee Ying, Seow Weng Jin, Chaye Muk Leng, Leong Kai Hsein and Tan Suet Mooi) who were parties to the Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCC- 557-12/2021;

8 Further distribution of the confidential and privilege information was produced and distributed to Messrs Nith Gowri Lachman & Partners as their counsel was involved in assisting and submitting before Ong Chee Kwan J in an attempt to convince the Court into allowing for the admissibility of the confidential and privilege communication which was later rejected by the learned Judge on the basis of no relevancy and that it is privileged communication;

9 This then led the Plaintiff to file an Originating Summons against Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitors to stop and/or prevent them from further publishing, distributing and filing of above stated WhatsApp communication;

10 After the filing of Enclosure 1, since the Defendant refused to appoint a third independent law firm to act on behalf of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was then forced to file Enclosure 8, being a disqualification application against the Defendant, SSLC and/or its employee on 22.04.2025;

11 On 17.09.2025, this Honourable Court allowed the Plaintiff's application via Enclosure 8 and provided the following as grounds for the decision (Exhibit HYH-20): "Enclosure 8 is filed by the Plaintiff, essentially asking the Court to relieve the firm, S Suresh Law Chambers from acting, representing, and rendering legal advice for the Defendant due to the issues of conflict of interest, and impartiality, and the use of privileged communication. Three (3) affidavits have been filed. Affidavit in Support affirmed by Hang Yan Han on 22.04.2025 (Enclosure 9); Afifdavit Jawapan of Suresh a/l Subramaniam affirmed on 08.05.2025 (Enclosure 10); and Afidavit Balasan of Heng Yan Han affirmed on 27.05.2025. The brief background of the action is the Plaintiff herein being named as the defendant in suit no.: WA-22NCVC-677-10/2021 with the firm of the Defendant herein being engaged to represent the Defendant therein. The Defendant herein then discharged from representing the Plaintiff due to the conflict concerning the legal fees between them. The Defendant then filed suit BA52BCVC- 139-07/2024 to claim the averred outstanding legal fees still owed. The issue in this OS concerns the alleged use of privileged communication by the Defendant herein pertaining to the said suit. This Court observes as below: There exists a solicitor-client relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. There is confidential information involved in the WhatsApp communication dated 21.07.2021 until September 2022 between Heng Yan Han and the Defendant, which have reached third parties. None of the paragraphs in the reply by the Defendant is able to justify or confirm the existence of any measure or safeguard in order to ensure that all confidential and privileged information in the Defendant's possession, his employees or solicitors will not be disclosed or used in any manner. By asserting justification in using the WhatsApp images, the Defendant is ignoring the duty of confidentiality, both by an advocate and solicitor to a former client, is absolute and survives the termination of the retainer. The Defendant, the firm, and its employees have failed to discharge the heavy burden placed upon them, to demonstrate there is no real risk of misuse of the Plaintiff's confidential and 21 privileged information. The Defendant herein has the dual role as a litigant, defending serious allegations and a former solicitor of the Plaintiff, places him in a position of conflict, whereby he has a continuing duty to maintain the confidentiality of the Plaintiff's privileged information as her former solicitor, and he has a competing interest in defending himself and protecting his own reputation in this litigation, and members of his firm is not excluded from this predicament. This is the type of conflict envisaged under Rule 5 of the Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978, which the rule is designed to prevent. There is a real possibility of embarrassment in continuing representing the Defendant, which is against Rule 3 of the Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978. Based on all those considerations, this Court decides to allow Enclosure 8 filed by the Plaintiff."

This court further takes notice the conduct of the Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitors prior to the filing of the Originating Summons before this Honourable Court, Enclosure 1:

1 The Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitor had filed confidential and privileged communication to the Magistrate Court at Petaling Jaya on 07.07.2023 known as Enclosure 8

2 The Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitor had filed confidential and privileged communication to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya on 02.01.2025 known as Enclosure 27

3 Filing of Enclosure 27 then led to extraction by $ 3 ^{rd} $ Part Messrs Palany Fairus and Adib Chambers who then further extracted and filed said WhatsApp communication to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and further exposure to Messrs SH Goh and Messrs YF Chan, 9 other individual ( Chow Sok Fui, Ting Tin Ching, Chong Lee Ying, Seow Weng Jin, Chaye Muk Leng, Leong Kai Hsein and Tan Suet Mooi), Ramesh a/l Lachmanan and Messrs Nith Gowri Lachman & Partners.

The following was the conduct of the Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitors after the filing of Enclosure 1:

1 The Defendant, SSLC and its employees and solicitor had continued to file confidential and privileged communication to the Sessions Court at Petaling Jaya on 10.04.2025 known as Enclosure 34

2 Since the 3rd party was already in possession of the WhatsApp communication, Messrs Palany Fairus & Adib Chambers had once again attempted to now introduce said privileged and confidential information and/or communication to High Court at Kuala Lumpur for Suit 677 after failing to adduce and admit the same in Suit 557 In Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222 at pg.237, Lord Millet held that where it was established that whereby solicitors were in possession of information confidential to a former client which might be relevant to a matter in which they were instructed by a subsequent client, the court should intervene to prevent the information from coming into the hands of anyone with an adverse interest unless it was satisfied that there was no real of disclosure. Lord Hope of Craighead concurred with Lord Millet and further opined as follows: A solicitor is under a duty not to communicate to others any information in his possession which is confidential to the former client. But the duty extends well beyond that of refraining from deliberate disclosure. It is the solicitor's duty to ensure that the former client is not put at risk that confidential information which the solicitor has obtained from that relationship may be used against him in any circumstances. Particular care is needed if the solicitor agrees to act for a new client who has, or who may have, an interest which is in conflict with that of the former client. In that situation the former client is entitled to the protection of the court if he can show that his solicitor was in receipt of confidential information which is relevant to a matter for which the solicitor is acting, against the former client's interest, for a new client. He is entitled to insist that measures be taken by the solicitor which will ensure that he is not exposed to the risk of careless, inadvertent or negligent disclosure of the information to the new client by the solicitor, his partners in the firm, its employees or anyone else for whose acts the solicitor is responsible. The said principle from Prince Jefri Bolkiah (supra) aligns with rule 35(b) of Practice & Etiquette Rules 1978 which states: "An advocate and solicitor shall preserve his client's confidence and this duty outlasts his employment"

In reference to the Affidavit in Answer deposed by the Defendant, Enclosure 28 and 31, the Defendant had not taken even a single proactive action to block the remaining access of the WhatsApp communication which has been filed at Suit 208 by the Defendant at the Magistrate Court of Petaling Jaya and Suit No.: 557 High Court of Kuala Lumpur by third party who had acquired the privilege communication through Enclosure 27 filed by the Defendant at the Sessions Court of Petaling Jaya for Suit No.: 139.

Neither have the Defendant taken any proactive step to prevent this third party from further relying, reproducing and/or disclosing the WhatsApp communication which the said third party has acquired and remain to be in possession of and the only reason why it has not showed up in Suit 677 is because the Plaintiff's solicitor have continuously challenged the production of the same. Until and unless the Defendant has taken any proactive step such as writing to the court and/or filing the relevant application and/or even writing to the third party, there is always a risk that the third party will attempt once again to adduce this WhatsApp communication, it is matter just matter of time.

Relying on the above stated principles in Prince Jefri Bolkiah (supra) and Ng Siew Lan (supra), the Defendant, SSLC, and its employees and solicitors have failed to discharge the heavy burden placed upon them to demonstrate that there is no real risk of misuse, inadvertent or otherwise, of the Plaintiff's confidential and privileged information. The continued and repeated disclosure, filing, and dissemination of said confidential communication after their engagement as solicitors for the Plaintiff had ceased, reinforces the existence of such a risk.

This Honourable Court's intervention is thus warranted to allow Enclosure 1 to, inter alia, prevent and/or prohibit any further reliance, disclosure, distribution, and/or reproduction of the confidential and privileged communication between Mr. Heng Yan Han and the Defendant via WhatsApp from 21 July 2021 to September 2022, on the following undisputed grounds:

the communications between Mr. Heng Yan Han and the Defendant were made at a time when the Defendant, SSLC and/or its employees were formally appointed as solicitors for the Plaintiff in Suit 677;

following the said appointment, Mr. Heng Yan Han, with the express authorisation of the Plaintiff, acted as representative for the Plaintiff and obtained legal advice from the Defendant, SSLC and/or its employees;

the communications exchanged between 21 July 2021 and September 2022 constitute privileged communications protected under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950;

at no time did the Defendant seek or obtain the Plaintiff's consent to disclose the above privileged communications in the Magistrates Court, the Sessions Court or the High Court;

the Defendant himself has admitted that the WhatsApp communications in question are privileged in nature; with the defendant conceding the same in their written submission filed as enclosure 48 at paragraph 13.

the said privileged communications were reproduced disclosed, relied upon, and disseminated by the Defendant, SSLC and/or their employees;

the Defendant, SSLC and/or its employees owed a continuing duty of confidentiality to the Plaintiff and could not disclose any privileged communication unless there was an express waiver of privilege by the Plaintiff;

the Defendant acted carelessly, negligently and without regard to the Plaintiff's interests by disclosing privileged communications despite knowing their privileged status;

the Defendant, SSLC and/or its employees had the means and the opportunity to exercise reasonable care by informing the Sessions Court of the privileged nature of the communications and by seeking redaction or removal of the same, as they themselves have done on previous occasions on 17.10.2025 via Enclosure 37 Suit No.:139 but failed to do so, thereby causing the present and ongoing breach;

this Honourable Court has already affirmatively recognised and held that the WhatsApp communications between Mr. Heng Yan Han and the Defendant constitute privileged communications, as reflected in the findings of this Court on 17.09.2025 (Exhibit HYH-20). The Court expressly rejected the attempt to admit the said communications on the basis that they are irrelevant and privileged, thereby confirming their protected status under the law.

In light of the above, this Court holds as below and grants Order in Terms for Enclosure 1:

The communications between Mr. Heng Yan Han and the Defendant/SSLC/employees/solicitors are privileged and protected;

The Defendant's attempt to rely on the exception under Section 126 EA is unsustainable; and

This Honourable Court's intervention is warranted to prevent further disclosure, reproduction, and distribution of the Plaintiff's privileged communications. Dated 5th July 2026 AZMI BIN ABDULLAH High Court Judge Shah Alam High Court COUNSELS Counsel for the Plaintiff: Dato' Rabinder Singh & Choong Angel M/s Rabinder Budiman & Associates Advocates and Solicitors 3B-15-5, Level 15, Block 3B, Plaza Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 5, 50470 Kuala Lumpur. Counsel for the Defendant: Muhammad Fayyadh M/s Yunus Ali & Kam Advocates & Solicitors No.5A, Jalan Anggerik Aranda D31D, Kota Kemuning, Section 31, 40460 Shah Alam, Selangor.