A clear fiduciary relationship must be established to disqualify an advocate due to conflict of interest.

[1] Enclosure AA1 is the application by the Petitioner to disqualify and/or disallow Ranjit Singh Harbinder Singh ("Ranjit") and Messrs Ranjit SinghYeoh ("Firm") from representing the Respondents in this Companies Winding-Up proceedings ("Proceedings").

[2] The Petitioner's application is premised generally on conflict of interest on the following grounds:

(i) Confidential information in relation to the Proceedings was revealed to Ranjit; and

(ii) Ranjit advised on strategy and gave his views in relation to the issues in the Proceedings.

[3] For purposes of Encl AA1, the following affidavits were filed by the respective parties: -

(i) the Petitioner's Affidavit in Support affirmed on 24 July 2017 (Petitioner's 1st Affidavit);

(ii) Ranjit Singh's Affidavit in Opposition affirmed on 1 July 2017 ("RS's 1st Affidavit);

(iii) the Petitioner's Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 14 July 2017 ("Petitioner's 2nd Affidavit"); and

(iv) Ranjit Singh's Affidavit in Opposition (2) affirmed on 21 July 2017 ("RS's 2nd Affidavit);

[4] After reading the written submissions filed by the parties, I heard counsel on 29 August 2017 and dismissed Encl AA1 with costs in the cause. I consequently furnish below the grounds of my decision in respect of the application.

Petitioner's Submission

[5] Firstly the Petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the filing of RS's 2nd Affidavit because there was no direction from the Court for the Respondents to file the said Affidavit. Consequently the Petitioner is prejudiced by the said Affidavit because:

(i) RS's 2nd Affidavit exhibited many new documents including a caveat application lodged by the Petitioner to support the allegation that the Petitioner is not a mere witness in Penang High Court Civil Suit No 22-52- 2010;

(ii) Ranjit Singh is now affirming the RS's 2nd Affidavit on behalf of the Respondents which wasn't so stated in the affidavit itself. (collectively "Procedural Irregularities")

[6] The Petitioner further submitted that the Respondents are the proper parties to oppose Encl AA1 and not Ranjit.

[7] In support of the substantive application, the Petitioner submitted that the Court has the inherent jurisdiction and power to disqualify the advocate as well as the solicitor's firm in order to ensure a fair trial by preventing any conflict of interest or the raising of embarrassing ethical issues. There is no reason given by the Respondents as to why it is so crucial and critical that Ranjit must be the counsel for the Respondents and no others can take over his place.

[8] It is the Petitioner's recollection that confidential information and strategies were disclosed and/or discussed during the meeting between the Petitioner, a Lim Hock Siang and Ranjit over a meeting 9 years ago.

[9] The Petitioner emphasized that there was obviously liaison between Mr Ranjit and the Petitioner and this is not a case where Ranjit had no previous introduction and dealings with the Petitioner whatsoever. Consequently the Petitioner prayed that Encl AA1 ought to be allowed in the interest of justice.

Respondent's Reply

[10] The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner failed to establish a strong case against the disqualification application because the Petitioner's allegations are completely bare and baseless. Casual advice is not enough to disqualify an advocate because neither Mr Ranjit nor his firm was retained as solicitor or that they were paid a fee for advice rendered.

[11] In essence, the Respondents submitted if as alleged, the Petitioner had discussed "kes-kes Auto-City" with Ranjit as alluded to in the Petitioner's 1st Affidavit and ought therefore to be disqualified f