Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for HO KAI BUN vs SALINA LEE MAY LEE...
HO KAI BUN vs SALINA LEE MAY LEE - 2019 MarsdenLR 222
: The exceptions to the without prejudice rule include: (1) when both parties consent to waive the privilege, and (2) when there is a dispute regarding the existence of a settlement agreement. These exceptions are supported by the English Supreme Court case Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v. TMT Asia Ltd [2010] 4 All ER 1011, and are further confirmed in Nagandran Kalianna Gaunder v. Melinda Alison [2011] 4 MLJ 224.Checking relevance for ANN JOO METAL SDN BHD vs BUKIT FRASER THERMAL TECHNOLOGIST SDN BHD (ENCL 15)...ANN JOO METAL SDN BHD vs BUKIT FRASER THERMAL TECHNOLOGIST SDN BHD (ENCL 15) - 2020 MarsdenLR 2154
: The exceptions to the ''''without prejudice'''' rule include: (1) where there is no bona fide dispute regarding the debt, as admissions of debt in correspondence not labelled without prejudice are admissible; (2) where the letter was not part of a genuine attempt to settle a dispute, such as when no dispute existed at the time of writing; (3) where the ''''without prejudice'''' label is used indiscriminately to immunize conduct from legal consequences without a genuine negotiation; and (4) where the communication contains an unequivocal admission of debt, which is not protected by the rule. These exceptions were affirmed in Malaysian case law, including Wong Nget Thau v. Tay Choo Foo [1994] 3 MLJ 723, which held that a letter marked ''''without prejudice'''' is admissible if there was no actual dispute at the time of the communication.Checking relevance for KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD vs IMPIANA SDN BHD & ANOR...KENANGA INVESTORS BERHAD vs IMPIANA SDN BHD & ANOR - 2024 MarsdenLR 543
: The key exception to the ''''without prejudice'''' privilege is when there is no genuine dispute at the time the communication was made. As established in the High Court case of Wong Nget Thau & Anor v. Tay Choo Foo [1994] 3 MLJ 723 at 734-735, a letter marked ''''without prejudice'''' is not protected by privilege if it was not part of a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. The court emphasized that the mere heading ''''without prejudice'''' does not automatically confer privilege; the court will assess whether the communication was made in the context of a real dispute. If no dispute existed, the letter is admissible in evidence.Checking relevance for HIGH POINT TECHNIC SDN BHD vs THRUSTBAR RESOURCES SDN BHD...HIGH POINT TECHNIC SDN BHD vs THRUSTBAR RESOURCES SDN BHD - 2021 MarsdenLR 2570
: The exception to ''''without prejudice'''' privilege arises when there is no genuine dispute over the matter at the time the communication is made. If a party admits liability and there is no real dispute about the amount owed, communications labeled ''''without prejudice'''' may not be protected. In such cases, the court may admit the communication into evidence because it was not part of a genuine attempt to settle a dispute. This principle was affirmed in the case of Wong Nget Thau & Anor v. Tay Choo Foo [1994] 3 MLJ 723, where the court held that a letter marked ''''without prejudice'''' is not automatically privileged if there was no dispute existing at the time it was issued. Therefore, the absence of a genuine dispute is a key exception to the ''''without prejudice'''' privilege.Checking relevance for DEXON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs CHIN POOI YEE & ANOR...DEXON ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SDN BHD vs CHIN POOI YEE & ANOR - 2021 MarsdenLR 2983
: The exceptions to the ''''without prejudice'''' rule include: (1) when a party has consented to the admissibility of ''''without prejudice'''' negotiations, thereby waiving the right to object to their admissibility (waiver); and (2) when the communication is used to prove the existence of a settlement agreement, or to show that a party has acted inconsistently with the terms of a settlement, or to establish a claim of estoppel. These exceptions are supported by Malaysian case law, including Gary Teh Chin Yeong v. Kwong Yan Loy & Anor [2019] 5 CLJ 329, and the principle from Lim Tjoen Kong v. A-B Chew Investments Pte Ltd [1991] 3 MLJ 4, as applied in Nulink Solutions Sdn Bhd v. Afdilia Holdings Sdn Bhd [2016] 6 AMR 639.
