Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4400
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LOW HUEI YING & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ANDREW GREGORY SEWELL (ENCLS 4 16 17 26 33 41 50 54 252 & 272) – Respondent
[Writ Of Summons No: WA-22NCVC-257-05/2022]
A former solicitor has a fiduciary duty to protect client confidentiality, and failure to do so may result in irreparable harm, justifying the issuance of an interim injunction.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 29 r 1 and O 92 r 4 - Application for prohibitory injunction to prevent disclosure of confidential information - Application granted except for certain prayers; Defendant's application to rescind injunction dismissed - Application for committal order against Plaintiff dismissed. (Paras 1-3, 10-12)
(B) Confidentiality and Fiduciary Duty - The Defendant, as former solicitor of the 1st Plaintiff, had a fiduciary duty not to disclose confidential information. Breach of this duty could lead to irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs. (Paras 12-14)
(C) Interim Injunction - The court must consider if there is a bona fide serious issue to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies. The court ruled that the Plaintiffs would suffer greater harm if the injunction was refused. (Paras 37-52)
(D) Contempt of Court - The Defendant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff's affidavits contained false statements that obstructed justice. (Paras 55-72)
Findings of Court:
The injunction was necessary to protect the Plaintiffs' interests and maintain the status quo until the hearing of the substantive application. The Defendant’s allegations of contempt were unproven.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Defendant had a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, the necessity of the injunction, and the validity of the contempt application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a serious issue to be tried, and the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to prevent potential irreparable harm.
Result: Applications by the Defendant dismissed; injunction granted in favor of the Plaintiffs.
(Enclosures 4, 16 & 272)
Introduction
[1] The parties filed these interlocutory applications namely:
(a) Application by the Plaintiffs for a prohibitory injunction against the Defendant from disclosing Plaintiffs' confidential and private information to any parties, directly or indirectly otherwise allowed by this Court (encl 4) which was allowed, except for prayers (v) and (vi);
(b) Application by the Defendant to rescind ab initio of the Ad interim Injunction Order for encl 4, granted by this Court on 24 May 2022 (encl 16) which was dismissed; and
(c) Application by the Defendant for a Committal Order against the 1st Plaintiff (encl 272) which was dismissed.
Brief Facts
[2] This Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs to prevent the Defendant, from exposing confidential and private information of the Plaintiffs on the basis that the Defendant was a former solicitor of the 1st Plaintiff.
[3] The Plaintiffs subsequently filed encl 4 for an interim injunction under O 29 r 1 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC ). Pending disposal of encl 4, the previous presiding Judge granted the Plaintiffs, an ad interim injunction Order on 24 May 2022 (Ad Interim Order).
[4] Hence, the Defendant filed encl 16 for an order that the Ad Interim Order be rescinded ab initio and a re-hearing of encl 4 or in the alternative that the Ad Interim Order be struck off and set aside.
[5] Later, the Defendant filed encl 272 which is the Defendant's application for a committal order against the 1st Plaintiff under O 52 r 4 of the ROC on the basis that the Plaintiff had given false information to the Court, scandalising the Court, and by acting ultra vires and mala fide against the Defendant. The Defendant levelled 48 charges against the 1st Plaintiff/Proposed Contemnor, for various allegations.
Enclosure 4
[6] In encl 4, the Plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs:
I. Satu perintah injunksi larangan (prohibitory injunction) interim terhadapDefendan daripada menggunakan ataupun membekalkan maklumat-maklumat peribadi Plaintif-plaintif samada secara langsung ataupun secara tidak langsung dalam apa jua kapasiti, melainkan sekiranya dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini;
II. Satu injunksi larangan interim untuk menghalang Defendan daripada berhubung dengan pihak-pihak yang berkaitan samada secara langsung atau tidak langsung dengan prosiding mahkamah yang berlangsung di Belgium yang melibatkan Plaintif-plaintif, melainkan sekiranya dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini;
III. Satu injunksi larangan interim untuk menghalang Defendan daripada berhubung dengan pihak-pihak yang berkaitan yang melibatkan status dan kepentingan Plaintif Kedua di Malaysia ataupun di Belgium;
IV. Satu injunksi larangan interim untuk menghalang Defendan daripada menghubungi dan/atau berkomunikasi dengan Plaintif dan/atau pihak-pihak ketiga lain yang turut membantu dalam kesinambungan kehidupan Plainitf secara langsung melainkan melalui peguamcara Plaintif;
V. Satu injunksi mandatori interim untuk memaksa Defendan untuk mendedahkan sebarang komunikasi ataupun percubaan untuk berkomunikasi dengan pihak-pihak ketiga samada secara langsung ataupun tidak langsung yang melibatkan status dan/atau kepentingan Plaintif-plaintif samada di Malaysia ataupun di Belgium secara menyeluruh dan telus (full and frank disclosure) dalam masa dua (2) hari dari tarikh perintah ini;
VI. Satu perintah injunksi mandatori interim untuk memaksa Defendan untuk menarikbalik sebarang tindakan ataupun maklumat-maklumat yang telah dikomunikasikan kepada pihak-pihak ketiga selaras dengan pendedahan di perenggan (iii) di atas dalam masa dua (2) hari dari tarikh perintah ini.
[7] The Ad Interim Order dated 24 May 2022 was granted until 21 July 2022 as reproduced:
"ATAS PERMOHONAN Plaintif DAN SETELAH MEMBACA Notis Permohonan bertarikh 17 Mei 2022, Afidavit Sokongan yang diikrarkan oleh Low Huei Ying pada 11 Mei 2022, dan Hujahan Plaintif-Plaintif, SETELAH MENDENGAR S. Ravichandran Peguamcara Plaintif
