Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for NORAZLINDAH MHD SHAH vs PETRO MART SENDIRIAN BERHAD (ENCL 1)...
NORAZLINDAH MHD SHAH vs PETRO MART SENDIRIAN BERHAD (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 767 : Under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950, solicitor-client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and their client. However, this privilege is not breached when a lawyer testifies about administrative or procedural actions taken on behalf of the client—such as issuing letters—without disclosing any confidential communications or discussions. In this case, SP4 testified only about the firm’s actions (e.g., issuing letters), not about any private conversations or matters discussed between the defendant and the solicitor. The court held that such testimony did not violate solicitor-client privilege, as it did not reveal protected communications. Therefore, a lawyer may testify about non-confidential, operational matters without infringing on privilege, provided no confidential information is disclosed.Checking relevance for CAREY REAL ESTATE SDN BHD vs IOI PROPERTIES GROUP BHD...
CAREY REAL ESTATE SDN BHD vs IOI PROPERTIES GROUP BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 549 : Solicitor-client privilege belongs to the client, not the solicitor. The solicitor is legally obliged to protect all information obtained from the client and all advice given to the client. A party who is not the client (such as the defendant in this case) does not have locus standi to claim legal professional privilege. This principle was affirmed in the Federal Court case Tan Chong Kean v. Yeoh Tai Chuan & Anor; [2018] 2 MLJ 669; [2018] 3 CLJ 294; [2018] 1 AMR 417, which held that privilege is client-specific and cannot be claimed by third parties, even if they are involved in the litigation. The court emphasized that the privilege is not dependent on whether the advocate''''s attention was directed to the fact by or on behalf of the client, as the privilege is inherent to the client''''s right.Checking relevance for CAREY REAL ESTATE SDN BHD vs IOI PROPERTIES GROUP BHD...
CAREY REAL ESTATE SDN BHD vs IOI PROPERTIES GROUP BHD - 2025 MarsdenLR 3543 : The court held that legal professional privilege belongs to the client, not the solicitor, and that only the client has the locus standi to claim the privilege. This was affirmed in the Federal Court case Tan Chong Kean v. Yeoh Tai Chuan & Anor, which stated that the privilege is client-specific and that the solicitor is legally obliged to protect both information obtained from the client and advice given to the client. Therefore, if a lawyer is called to testify, the privilege cannot be claimed by the opposing party or the solicitor unless the client consents, as the privilege is not transferable and is strictly tied to the client''''s interest.Checking relevance for K K LIM & ASSOCIATES vs OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD...
K K LIM & ASSOCIATES vs OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD - 2024 MarsdenLR 1461 : Legal professional privilege protects confidential communications between a solicitor and client from disclosure, but does not extend to facts observed by the lawyer independently of such communications (the ''''observed facts'''' exception). This includes information such as the client''''s name and address, handwriting, mental capacity, existence of a retainer, or the fact that the client signed pleadings or affidavits. Furthermore, privilege does not apply to matters that a lawyer sees with their own eyes (e.g., physical objects or personalty) or to information communicated through non-confidential means. If a lawyer is called to testify, they may be required to disclose such non-privileged facts, particularly when relevant to verifying the truth of documents like a letter of demand. The court emphasized that requiring a trial within a trial to determine admissibility of privileged information would disrupt the trial process, and instead recommended using interlocutory procedures like discovery or interrogatories to obtain non-privileged factual details from the solicitor.Checking relevance for TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS...
TAN HOO ENG vs CIMB BANK BERHAD & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 4235 : The court upheld that legal advice provided by Shearn to CIMB is protected by legal professional privilege and cannot be challenged by the customer. The court emphasized that communications between a solicitor and client for the purpose of legal advice are permanently protected from disclosure unless the client gives express consent. This protection is based on the common law principle that ''''once privileged, always privileged'''', as affirmed in Dato'''' Anthony See Teow Guan v. See Teow Chuan & Anor [2009] 3 MLJ 14. The court further held that a mere reference to the existence of legal advice in an affidavit does not constitute an unequivocal waiver of privilege, and the court cannot compel disclosure of the advice or draw adverse inferences from non-disclosure, as doing so would undermine the principle of confidentiality that promotes candour between lawyer and client. This protection applies even if the lawyer is called to testify, as the privilege prevents the disclosure of the substance of the advice.
