An inquiry under the Mental Disorders Ordinance is discretionary; it should not proceed if no beneficial purpose is served for the individual involved.

[1] This rather unfortunate matter stems from encl. 1, (now encl. 19) as amended ie, the application of the plaintiff to seek various orders pursuant to the Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952 (MDO) as a consequence of a bitter family feud between siblings and I set out below the prayers sought:

a) that pursuant to s. 3 of the Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952 :

(i) an inquiry be made into the state of mind of the respondent/defendant to determine whether respondent/defendant is mentally disordered and/or incapable of managing himself and his own affairs;

(ii) Such other directions as may be necessary for the purposes of and consequent to the inquiry on the respondent/defendant including but not limited to the following:

(a) The time during which the respondent/defendant was of unsound mind;

(b) Determine the extent and nature of the property of the respondent/defendant;

b) that pursuant to s. 5 of the Mental Disorders Ordinance 1952 :

(i) directions to be given by this Honourable Court as to the manner in which the notice of inquiry is to be served on the respondent/defendant;

(ii) directions be given by this Honourable Court for service of the notice of the time and place for inquiry.

[2] The 1st defendant Teh Liang Teik (TLT) is the father of the plaintiff and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th defendants. Originally the only defendant/respondent in the matter was TLT but later the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th defendants applied to successfully intervene in the matter. TLT's wife & mother of TLT children passed away on 5 April 2003.

[3] The spark that lit the fuse of this bitter family feud was when on 18 April 2002, the 2nd defendant was appointed the Managing Director of Malayan Flour Mills Berhad (MFMB). The plaintiff was at that time a member of the board of M.F.M.B and was holding the post as Deputy Managing Director. In April 2002, the 2nd defendant was appointed to succeed TLT at the helm of MFMB which at that material time was controlled through TLT's direct shareholding and via TLT's in direct shareholding in MFMB via several companies controlled by TLT (the Teh Companies) which held substantial shares in MFMB. The stage was set for a classicus bitter family dispute. TLT lived in the family home at 8 Jalan U-Thant (the family home) since 1966 together with the plaintiff and his family and the 2nd defendant and his family.

[4] In early 2001, TLT had a stroke after returning from a business trip to Vietnam accompanied by the 2nd defendant faced "multiple strokes" in July 2003 after returning from Hong Kong and was hospitalized for a month. The plaintiff claims he was prevented from visiting TLT or was informed of his actual medical condition and whilst TLT was coping with his medical predicament, the feud between siblings had entered the arena of the courts. Very briefly the various Court actions initiated in the main by the plaintiff were as follows:

(1) Litigation involving a deed of gift and a declaration as to its validity (the D6 suit) which is still pending. The plaintiff is one of the claimants in the D6 suit and the suit is still pending.

(2) The plaintiff is one of the petitioners in originating Petition D2-26-44-2003 which is also still pending.

(3) There was also a habeas corpus application in the Kuala Lumpur criminal Court, criminal Application No 44-79-2003 for a writ of habeas corpus for TLT to be brought to Court and to be released. The hearing proceeded for 21/2 years and on 29 June 2006 the said proceedings were withdrawn.

(4) There was a suit filed in the High Court S2-22-362-2005 seeking various orders amongst others:

a) that the 2nd Defendant (as 1st Defendant in the S2 suit) be restrained from having contact with TLT;

b) that the 2nd Defendant be restrained from dealing with or disposing of any of the assets of TLT;

c) for the care and supervision of TLT;

d) for the 2nd Defendant to deliver an account of assets of TLT;

e) for the appointment