SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 MarsdenLR 2433

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
PROTASCO BHD – Appellant
Versus
TEY POR YEE & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: 02(i)-47-09-2020 (W) 02(i)-48-09-2020 (W) & 02(i)-49-092020(W)]



Petitioner Advocates:S Sivaneindiren,Peter Skelchy,Joycelyn Teoh ,Respondent Advocate: Malik Imtiaz Sarwar,Khoo Suk Chyi,Lim Yvonne,Ng Keng Yeng

The Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act does not provide a new discovery power; discovery must follow the established Rules of Court.

Headnote:(A) Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 – Section 7 – High Court granted application for inspection of banker's books which was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal – The provisions of the Act do not provide a new power of discovery; they facilitate proving banking transactions – Discovery must be sought in accordance with Rules of Court 2012. (Paras 12-14, 68-71)

(B) Judicial interpretation – The High Court judge's conclusion regarding the interpretation of the Act was found erroneous by the Court of Appeal, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 54, 83-136)

(C) Relevant legislative intent – The underlying legislative intent is to relieve bankers from the necessity of attending court to produce their books as evidence. (Paras 11-16, 88-119)

JUDGMENT

Rhodzariah Bujang FCJ (Majority):

[1] The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit filed in the High Court, has been granted by this Court leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which overturned that of the High Court in respect of two interlocutory applications heard by the learned High Court Judge. The respondents were the appellant's former directors and were sued by the appellant together with a company, PT Anglo Slavic Utama ("PT Anglo"), who was named the 1st defendant in the suit and who was allegedly under the respondents' control. The 1st defendant was also a substantial shareholder of the appellant. The claim against them was premised on an alleged conspiracy by all three of them to defraud the appellant and as against the respondents it was also grounded on breaches of their fiduciary duties owed to it which had caused a substantial monetary loss of USD27 million to the appellant. That amount, which the appellant now seeks to recover from them, was the monies the appellant had paid PT Anglo and PT Anglo Slavic Indonesia ("PT ASI") for the acquisition of 76% of the total issued share capital in the latter by the appellant, which would indirectly give the appellant the right over a licence to develop an oil field in Aceh Tamiang Regency, in the Province of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Indonesia as explained in paras 9 and 10 of the appellant's statement of claim. That acquisition was done vide a sale and purchase agreement dated 28 December 2012 and which was subsequently amended vide an agreement dated 29 January 2014.

The Applications

[2] I have made a conscious decision to summarily state the rudimentary background facts above, for given the nature of the leave questions granted to the appellant to appeal to this Court, these are sufficient to understand the legal dispute now troubling the parties. As stated above, the dispute centers on the two applications filed by the appellant which are inter-related. The first, encl 307, on pre-trial discovery of documents, was made pursuant to s 6 and/or s 7 of Bankers' Books (Evidence) Act 1949 ("the Act") and/ or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012"). The order sought under this application was for the appellant to inspect and take copies of all documents in the possession of Maybank Berhad and CIMB Bank in respect of the respondents', Nutox Limited's, Abamon Technology Sdn Bhd's and JF Apex Securities Berhad's accounts held in the said Banks. The order which was granted by the learned High Court Judge on 7 January 2019 was however stayed by the Court of Appeal but that was before the said Banks had released some of the documents sought under the said order. It has to be mentioned that following clarification sought by the respondents, the learned High Court Judge limited the said order to the period between 28 December 2012 and 22 September 2014.

[3] The second application, encl 395, pertains to the admission of abovementioned discovered banking documents as well as the one disclosed in an application filed earlier than the said two. That first application ("encl 48"), also made under the same legal provisions as encl 307 by the appellant, and it was to inspect and take copies of all entries in the accounts of PT Anglo, PT ASI and the three related companies of the respondents, Fast Global Investments Limited, PT Nusantara Rising Rich and Telecity Investment Limited ("the three related companies") in CIMB Bank Berhad ("CIMB Bank") and CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad ("CIMB Islamic"). The appellant was moved to make this application because shortly after the appellant filed the suit in this appeal, the 1st respondent through his corporate vehicle, Kingdom Seekers Ventures Sdn Bhd, filed a derivative action against the appellant as the 7th defendant, its Managing Director, Dato' Sri Chong Ket Pen, as the 1st defendant and six other defendants for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duties in respect of the appellant's acquisition of shares in PT ASI fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top