Legal professional privilege protects client communications, and the court affirmed its importance against mandatory disclosures in disciplinary proceedings.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons seeking among others, the following reliefs:

(i) A declaration that the Defendants direction vide letter dated 25 July 2017 to the Plaintiff to comply with the directions given on 2 June 2017 would require the Plaintiff to breach client and solicitor privilege and is contrary to ss 126 to 129 of the Evidence Act 1950 and/or the common law of client and solicitor privilege;

(ii) A declaration that the Defendants statement in the letter dated 25 July 2017 in para 40 therein that the Plaintiff had not raised the issue of client and solicitor privilege is misguided and incorrect as the Plaintiff had stated that the documents were confidential but was denied an opportunity to orally submit on the same as requested.

(iii) That notwithstanding the above, a declaration that the documents ordered to be produced by the Defendants vide order dated 2 June 2017 and the order dated 25 July 2017 are documents which are covered by client and solicitor privilege;

(iv) That, in the event this Honourable Court holds that the documents required to be produced pursuant to the orders dated 2 June 2017 and 25 July 2017 are confidential documents covered under client and solicitor privilege that the Plaintiff need not produce the same in the proceedings before the Defendants.

The Background Facts

[2] The relevant facts in this case are as follows:

(i) On 30 April 2015, Dato Azizi bin Yom Ahmad ('the Complainant') has lodged a complaint to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board ('ASDB') against the Plaintiff for making false representation to his company, Newlake Development Sdn Bhd ('Newlake') and induced the Complainant to enter into an agreement with Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd ('Zenith Delight') in purchasing a land for the sum of RM9,056,124.00 which later found to be a sham transaction.

(ii) The said amount of RM9,056,124.00 has been paid by Newlake to the Plaintiffs legal firm, Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah, where the Plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor, is the managing partner of the legal firm. Zenith Delight is the client of the Plaintiffs legal firm.

(iii) The ASDB thereafter constituted a Disciplinary Committee ('DC') to investigate the complaint made against the Plaintiff.

(iv) On 20 April 2017, the Complainant made an application to the DC for cheques, payment vouchers, bank statements, letter and other documents of the Plaintiff and/or his legal firm in regards to the said deposit sum, to be produced for the DC's inspection.

(v) On 2 June 2017, the DC ruled that the Plaintiff to produced the said documents during the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings against the Plaintiff.

(vi) The Plaintiff then, on 21 June 2017 filed a judicial review application which was later withdrawn by the Plaintiff.

(vii) Next, the DC, by letter dated 28 August 2017 had fixed the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings on 24 December 2017 and directed the Plaintiff to deliver the said documents to the Defendants and the Complainant's solicitor, 14 days before the hearing date.

(viii) On 6 September 2017, the Plaintiff filed the present Originating Summons before this Court.

The Plaintiffs Grounds For The Reliefs Sought In The Originating Summons

[3] The grounds forwarded to support the Plaintiffs Originating Summons are the following:

(i) the client and solicitor privilege pursuant to subsection 126(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 barred the Plaintiff from producing the documents ordered to be produced by the DC without the express consent from the Plaintiffs client.

(ii) the documents ordered to be produced by DC has no relevancy in the discipl