JUDGMENT

The defendant filed a summons-in-chambers on 6 May 1996 (encl. 21) pursuant to Order 41 rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court, 1980 ("RHC") for an order that the affidavit of Serene Ong, an advocate and solicitor, filed on 21 March 1996 in support of the summary judgment application of the plaintiff company be struck out with costs. It is supported by the affidavit of the defendant. In fact the order to be [2] prayed should be for any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive.

Order 41 rule 6 reads -

"The Court may order to be struck out of any affidavit any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive."

(emphasis added)

The nature of the defendant's application would seem to be to strike out the affidavit altogether.

The defendant's counsel contended that the matters deposed in the affidavit of Serene Ong (encl. 6) are irrelevant or otherwise oppressive. To be more exact, he was relying on privileged communication between solicitor and client and by virtue of section 126 of the Evidence Act, 1950 ("Act"), that is, such communication is inadmissible evidence unless it is expressly consented to by the defendant. The proviso to section