Faiza Tamby Chik J:

In prayer 1 and 2 of this application for injunction (encl. 24), the petitioner is seeking from this court for an injunction to prevent the respondent and his agents from disclosing and using the documents of the petitioner and the late Chew Choon Ming ('the late CCM') which have been entrusted to Ms. Yum Shirley and Ms. Chan Yen Peng. The basis of the petition for her application as stated in para. (ii) of encl. 24 is that Ms. Yum Shirley and Ms. Chan Yen Peng have without authority disclosed the documents of the petitioner including her diaries and the late CCM which amounted to a breach of confidence. It can also be gathered from the affidavit in support of the petitioner affirmed on 9 April 2003 ("encl. 25") in support of encl. 24 that:

(a) The petitioner had left her diaries for the year 1979, 1980 and 1983 and her personal document in the private room of the late CCM whereby she has access to the said room before the late CCM passed away on 5 June 2000 (para. 6);

(b) Since the month of October 2002, the petitioner was aware that Ms. Yum Shirley and Ms. Chan Yen Peng was having possession of her diaries (para. 10);

(c) Due to the breach of confidence by the respondent, Ms. Chan Yen Peng and Ms. Yum Shirley, this court ought to grant an injunction to prevent the respondent and his agents from disclosing and using the petitioner's documents.

I think the petitioner's application for injunction under encl. 24 is misconceived and without any basis on the following grounds:

(a) the petitioner has failed to show that there is a serious question to be tried or there is a status quo to be preserved in the application for injunction under encl. 24;

(b) the petitioner's application for injunction is an abuse of the court's process as the application for injunction was filed with the collateral purpose of preventing this court from considering relevant and important evidence including the documents which clearly disprove the petitioner's case in this petition;

(c) the petitioner's diaries are not personal and confidential information as at the material time, the petitioner has surrendered her diaries to Ms. Yum Shirley with the knowledge and consent for the same to be used as historical artifacts and records for Baitianggong Universal Spiritual Movement ('BUSM'). In fact since they are for record and historical artifacts, then they would be available to the members of public for inspection;

(d) the petitioner has no right to seek an injunction restraining the respondent from disclosing and using the personal document of the late CCM who at the material time was the respondent's father.

In the main suit ie, the petition, the petitioner is petitioning to this court for a declaration that the marriage celebrated on 5 May 1979 between the late CCM and the petitioner in accordance with Chinese customary rites in Ipoh, Perak be declared to be valid and subsisting marriage for all intents and purposes (see prayer 1 at p. 10 of the Amended Petition dated 20 Jun 2002). In reply to this petition, the respondent has filed his reply to the petition disputing the petitioner's allegation of the existence of the Chinese customary ceremony on 5 May 1979 and also disputing the respondent's status as the petitioner's status as the legal widow of the late CCM (see respondent's reply dated 30 October 2002). In support of the respondent's case and as rebuttal to the petitioner's claim, the respondent through his solicitors have filed in this court relevant bundles of documents which among others consists of the petitioner's diaries and documents and also other documents belonging to the late CCM. I think since the main issue to be tried in the main suit as claimed by the petitioner involves the question of whether or not there was a Chinese customary marriage between the petitioner and the late CCM on 5 May 1979 and whether or not the petitioner was the lawful widow of the late CCM, the respondent is entitled to bring in evid