Disclosure of statements made to Securities Commission Officers is subject to public interest considerations, prioritizing confidentiality in investigations.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (the plaintiff in the High Court), against the decision of the Court of Appeal made on 10 November 2011 which affirmed (with variation) the decision of the High Court in allowing in part the respondent's application for discovery of documents pursuant toO 24 of the Rules of the High 1980 ("RHC") in the civil action instituted by the appellant against the respondent. The leave to appeal was granted by this Court on the following question:

"(i) Mengambil kira prinsip undang-undang dalam prosiding jenayah bahawa semua penyataan yang dibuat kepada, dan direkodkan oleh seorang Pegawai Siasatan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti berikutan daripada s 134(4) Akta Suruhanjaya Sekuriti 1993 tidak boleh didedahkan kepada pihak pembelaan, samada Mahkamah Rayuan adalah benar dari segi undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa sekalipun demikian, semua penyataan tersebut boleh didedahkan dalam prosiding sivil.

(Having regard to the principle of law in criminal proceedings that all statements made to and recorded by an Investigating Officer of the Securities Commission pursuant to s 134(4) of the Securities Commission Act 1993 are not be disclosed to the defence, whether the Court of Appeal was right in law in ruling that all such statements are however disclosable in civil proceedings)."

[2] The background facts of the appellant's action against the respondent are these: The primary shareholder and Managing Director of Kenmark was one James Hwang Ding Kuo ("Hwang") a Taiwanese national. The appellant claimed that the manner in which Kenmark's affairs were conducted by Hwang from late May 2010 to June 2010 had led to a crash of its share price caused by the market's total lack of confidence in its future. It is the appellant's case that the respondent had been involved in the affairs of Kenmark in the following manner:

a. On 2 June 2010 and 3 June 2010, the respondent acting through his family trust fund and a company controlled by him had caused the acquisition of Kenmark shares for a total gross purchase consideration of RM3,858,353.00. As at 3 June 2010, the respondent owned some 57,691,900 million shares in Kenmark, amounting to 32.36% of Kenmark's share capital.

b. On 3 June 2010, at the meeting of the Board of Directors of Kenmark, four new Directors were appointed. The appointment was requested by Hwang at the respondent's direction.

c. Following his initial acquisition of the Kenmark shares, on 4 June 2010 and 6 June 2010, the respondent made false statements to the press as to the ability of Kenmark to resume operations and return to profitability, which would have the effect of raising the market price of Kenmark shares and inducing persons to purchase Kenmark shares, constituting a breach of s 177 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (CMSA).

d. On 9 June 2010 and 11 June 2010, the respondent sold his shares in Kenmark. The total gross sum realised was RM10,160,636.00 amounting to a profit of RM6,302,303.13 for a six-day investment.

[3] In June 2010, the appellant commenced investigations into suspected offences committed under the securities laws in respect of Kenmark. In the course of investigations, 38 people were interviewed by the appellant's Investigating Officers pursuant to s 134 of the SCA .

[4] On 16 June 2010, upon the appellant's application, the High Court granted an ex parte interim order pursuant to s 360 of the CMSA, restraining the respondent from dissipating or otherwise dealing with funds believed by the appellant to be proceeds of offences committed by the respondent under the securities laws.

[5] On 24 September 2010, the appellant commenced t