The court may reject unchallenged medical opinions if supported by contradictory evidence.

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the second to fourth defendants, Tan Sri Dato' (Dr) Rozali Ismail, his brother Mat Hairi Ismail and WWE Holdings Bhd (a company controlled by the brothers), to set aside previous orders of the High Court dated 25 and 27 April 2012 by which:

(a) the first defendant, Lim Pang Cheong @ George Lim, was found to be mentally disordered within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001 ; and

(b) the plaintiff, Gary Lim (who is the son of George Lim) and Loh Foh Fin, the wife of George Lim, were appointed as the committee of George Lim's person and estate.

[2] For ease of reference, the second to fourth defendants are referred to as the judgment creditors (for reasons that will shortly be apparent), while George Lim is referred to as the first defendant. The plaintiff and the committee (acting for the first defendant and his estate) were represented by the same counsel, whom I will refer to simply as the counsel for the plaintiff. References to the plaintiff should be taken to include a reference to the committee of the first defendant and of his estate, unless the context requires otherwise.

[3] In order to understand the context within which the issues of this case lie, it will be necessary to recite a brief background of this case and its other related disputes.

Background Facts

[4] The first defendant had commenced a suit for fees that he alleged were due to him in connection with the procurement of an award to the fourth defendant of a project known as the Jelutong Sewage Treatment Plant and Central Sludge Facility.

[5] The first defendant obtained judgment at the High Court against the judgment creditors , and a sum of approximately RM35 million was paid to the first defendant's solicitors in satisfaction of the judgment. The solicitors released the money to the first defendant's instructions, which the judgment creditors claimed was in contravention of an ex parte preservation order of the Federal Court. The judgment creditors then sought leave for an order of committal against the first defendant and his solicitors at that time. The motion for committal was ultimately dismissed by the Federal Court, based on its finding of fact that the sum was released prior to the service of the notice of the ex parte preservation order .

[6] The judgment creditors had in the meantime appealed against the whole of the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed restitution to the judgment creditors.

[7] The first defendant failed to refund the sum paid.

[8] The judgment creditors commenced bankruptcy proceedings at the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam, pursuant to which the first defendant was adjudged a bankrupt. Following a creditors' meeting, a public examination of the first defendant was first fixed for 6 April 2012 and subsequently adjourned to 26 April 2012, which the first defendant attended and where he was questioned by an officer from the office of the Director General of Insolvency (the DGI).

[9] On the previous day, 25 April 2015, the plaintiff had filed an originating summons seeking an order, inter alia, declaring the first defendant to be mentally disordered and for the charge of his affairs to be placed with a committee. As mentioned in paragraph 1 ante, the orders of 25 and 27 April 2012 were granted as a consequence, by my brother judge O'Hara J. In granting the order of 27 April 2012, O'Hara J had interviewed the first defendant, in exercise of the powers of Court under s 54(1)(a) of the Mental Health Act 2001 .

[10] At the next public examination of the first defendant on 14 May 2012, the High Court at Shah Alam was informed of the proceedings under th