KHOO YIK CHOU v 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. ) NICHOLAS FUNG WIN JUAN

wa-22ncc-78-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 6 October 2025 • WA-22NCC-78-02/2025 • 14 min read
8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Catchwords

application for Interrogatories-a partner in a law firm-The information sought is privileged under section 126[1] of the Evidence Act of 1950-fiduciary duties-The interrogatories amount to a fishing expedition-The interrogatories are not necessary for the fair disposal of this matter-deposit was released to third parties-acted as stakeholder-Interrogatories is governed by Order 26 rule 1[3] ROC 2012-Interrogatories are not confined to matters which are in issue. They can extend to facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of the facts directly in issue-Interrogatories will be allowed if designed to obtain admissions of facts which will reduce the issues, shorten the length of trial and thus save costs-Section 126[1] of the Evidence Act only protects: (i) communications passing between a solicitor and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (ii) the contents or condition of any document which the solicitor became acquainted with in the course of his employment; and (iii) the advice given by the solicitor to his client-Legal professional privilege is of a limited character. It does not protect all confidential communications a man must necessarily make in order to obtain advice. The solicitor’s bank statements are not protected by section 126[1] of the Evidence Act from disclosure-The address to which a solicitor’s letter was sent to is not protected by section 126[1] of the Evidence Act from disclosure-The answers sought vide the Interrogatories are factual information relating to the release of the said Deposit. They are not legal advice or confidential information-Information such as the identity of recipients, payment dates, methods and bank details does not become privileged under section 126[1] of the Evidence Act simply because they passed through a firm of solicitors-On stakeholders it is trite-The manner in which the money is to be disposed of depends on the terms on which it is held.-When solicitors hold funds as stakeholders, they hold those funds as trustees and not in a contractual or quasi-contractual capacity.-‘If an estate agent or solicitor, being duly authorised in that behalf, receives a deposit ‘as stakeholder’, he is under a duty to hold it in medio pending the outcome of a future event. He does not hold it as agent for the vendor, nor as agent for the purchaser. He holds it as trustee for both to await the evidence-Any wrongful disbursement of stakeholder monies will give rise to the right of the beneficiary/owner to trace the stakeholder monies into the hands of anyone who acquired it-Interrogatories will be allowed to trace the stakeholder monies into the hands of anyone who acquired it

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (10)

Goh Keng Tat & Co. Firm Hannibal & Ng Chambers Firm Michael Chow Firm Sankey & Partners Firm Carey Lee Counsel Plaintiff Damien Chan Counsel Plaintiff Elfeez Thariq Counsel Defendant Jeff Ng Counsel Plaintiff Neoh Kai Sheng Counsel Defendant Sunitha Shalini Counsel Defendant

Parties (5)

Khoo Yik Chou Plaintiff Koay Liang Kheng Defendant Lee Kah Wei Defendant Nicholas Fung Win Juan Defendant Saw Chia Hui Defendant

Case Significance

KHOO YIK CHOU v 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. )... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 6, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncc-78-02-2025). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of KHOO YIK CHOU v 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. )...?

KHOO YIK CHOU v 1. ) KOAY LIANG KHENG 2. ) LEE KAH WEI 3. ) SAW CHIA HUI 4. )... is a High Court decision dated October 6, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act
s 126
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (8)

MY (8)
[1975] 1 MLJ 89 [2002] 2 MLJ 278 [2009] 6 MLJ 751 [2013] 5 MLJ 640 [2020] MLJU 1476 [2020] MLJU 2536 [2021] 11 MLJ 729 [2024] MLJU 2050

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-78-02-2025)