Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NEWLAKE DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
ZENITH DELIGHT SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
Key Points: - The court ruled that bank statements are relevant and admissible as evidence to address issues of breach of trust and fiduciary duties (!) (!) (!) . - Bank statements are considered internal documents of a solicitor's firm and are not covered by solicitor-client privilege as they do not constitute communications for seeking legal advice (!) (!) (!) . - The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) was found not to apply to the bank statements in this case because the data subject (D1) was a corporate entity, not an individual, and the statements did not identify or make identifiable other individual clients (!) (!) (!) . - Even if the PDPA were applicable, disclosure of the bank statements was permitted under the Act for the administration of justice and compliance with legal obligations, including court orders (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Previous High Court decisions regarding the relevance of the bank statements did not constitute res judicata because the merits of the case had not been conclusively determined (!) (!) . - The admissibility of documents for trial is governed by the Evidence Act, not discovery rules (!) (!) . - The court allowed the plaintiff's application to admit the bank statements as evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The bank statements were relevant to ascertain the whereabouts of the deposit monies and to determine potential breaches of stakeholder duties and conspiracy to defraud (!) (!) . - The court emphasized that the prejudicial effect of the bank statements did not outweigh their probative value (!) . - The bank statements were previously tendered as evidence in a criminal trial of one of the defendants (!) .
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This trial concerns only the 1st to 4th Defendants (collectively the "Defendants") as the Plaintiff's ("P") action against the 5th to 11th Defendants had been struck out. After a full trial, I dismissed P's suit against the Defendants. I delivered my decision and grounds of judgment on 15 January 2021. P filed an appeal against my judgment on 22 January 2021.
Voir Dire
[2] The 2nd Defendant ("D2") is a firm of solicitors. The 3rd Defendant ("D3") is an advocate and solicitor. D3 was at all material time the Managing Partner of D2. D2 and D3 are collectively referred to as "D2&3".
[3] During the trial, P sought to admit certain documents ("Subject Documents") as evidence. The Subject Documents consist of:
(i) the bank statements ("Bank Statements") pertaining to the Office Account No 1474-0000551-10-3 ("Office Account") and the Client Account No 1474-0000553-10-9 ("Client Account") of D2 for the period from December 2010 to February 2012("Relevant Period");
(ii) the account opening form and supporting documents pertaining to the opening of the Office Account and the Client Account of D2;
(iii) two letters from CIMB Bank Bhd to Jabatan Siasatan Jen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
