The principles of implied undertaking protect confidentiality but can be lifted for public interest in transparency, especially when evidence is relevant and publicly available.

[1] On 27/1/10 the Plaintiff filed this action against the 1^st Defendant, Ho Hup Construction Company Bhd (Ho Hup) and 28 others. In it the Plaintiff sought to secure the compliance by the Defendants with the Malaysian Code on Take-Overs and Mergers 1998 (the Code) and the Securities Commission Act 1993 . (the SCA ). In particular the Plaintiff sought inter alia, the following reliefs:

a) A declaration that the 2^nd to 29^th Defendants are parties acting in concert in the acquisition of control of Ho Hup.

b) A declaration that the 2^nd to 29^th Defendants have breached the Code and the SCA in failing to make a mandatory general offer for the shares of Ho Hup.

c) An order directing the 2^nd to 29^th Defendants or one or more of them to make a mandatory general offer for the shares in Ho Hup in accordance with the provisions of the Code and/or the SCA .

d) Special and/or general damages and/or equitable compensation.

e) Damages at common law for conspiracy to injure.

f) Punitive damages and

g) Costs.

[2] Pending trial in this case investigations were commenced by Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (the SSM) into complaints made against the 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th Defendants for alleged offences under ss 69E and 69F of the Companies Act 1965 (the Act) .

[3] In the course of investigations statements were recorded by the Investigation Officers of SSM. The powers to investigate are under s 7D of the Act. Witnesses are obliged to answer all questions including questions to which the answers may be self-incriminating.

[4] As a result of the investigations, proceedings were commenced by the SSM against the 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th Defendants by way of an Originating Summons vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Case No: D-24NCC-67-2010 (the SSM OS) for injunctive relief to restrain the 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th Defendants from voting at an EGM of the 1^st Defendant to be held on 4/2/10.

[5] The main ground of the application in the SSM OS was that the 2^nd, 3^rd and 5^th Defendants failed to disclose as required under ss 4(1) , 7(1), 7(4) , 69D , 69E ,69F , 69M , 69N , 691, 368A(1)(a) and (b) of the Act , their acquisition of shares in Ho Hup.

[6] The SSM summoned various persons to give statements and to provide various documents and information to the Investigation Officers. These statements, information and documents obtained were then set out in affidavits affirmed by the Investigation Officers and filed in Court in support of the SSM OS (the Impugned Evidence). These affidavits are comprised in Jilid 5 to Jilid 9, Part C of the Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents. A consent order was entered in the SSM OS case where the 2^nd and 5^th Defendants were restrained from exercising their voting rights to shares in the 1^st Defendant.

[7] On 29/10/10 when the Plaintiff opened its case Counsel for the Plaintiff informed the Court that he intended to call the Investigation Officers who had filed the affidavits in the SSM OS as witnesses. The Court was also informed that the witness statements of the Investigation Officers had been prepared and served on the Defendants. The objective in calling the Investigation Officers as witnesses was to put in evidence the Impugned Evidence obtained by the Investigation Officers during the SSM investigations.

[8] The Plaintiff intended to call 11 Investigation Officers (the SSM Witnesses).

[9] Counsel for the Defendants gave notice that he would be raising "a substantial preliminary objection as to the admissibility of the evidence that the SSM Witnesses were intending to give, in so far as the same relates to the Impugned Evidence, in this trial".

[10]Preliminary Objection by the 2^nd, 4^th to 7^th Defe