BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD v 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD

wa-22ncc-389-06-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 February 2026 • WA-22NCC-389-06/2025 • 11 min read

6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Catchwords

EVIDENCE: Without prejudice communications – Admissibility – Section 23 Evidence Act 1950 – Whether any exceptions apply – Whether communications disclose unambiguous impropriety – High threshold – Impropriety must be clear on face of communication – Non-response insufficient – Whether court is functus officio – Prior exposure of material – Doctrine of finality -–Whether unmarked communications privileged – High threshold not met –- Privilege maintained

Practice Areas

EVIDENCE: Without prejudice communications

Judges (1)

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik Delivered

Counsel (8)

Paul Cheah & Associates Firm Rishi & Partners Firm Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm Daud Sulaiman Counsel Defendant Nurul Hafizah Counsel Defendant Rashveni Dewi Counsel Defendant Rishikessingam a/l Rajakulasingam Counsel Plaintiff Sathya Kumardas Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN Sdn Bhd Plaintiff PACIFIC TRUSTEES BERHAD Defendant SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD Defendant

Case Significance

BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD v 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFI... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated February 8, 2026 (citation: wa-22ncc-389-06-2025). <p>Brunsfield Metropolitan sought to rely on without prejudice settlement communications in its claim against Sime Darby Property regarding a disputed stakeholder sum under a share sale agreement, arguing the communications revealed unambiguous impropriety. The High Court allowed the defendants' applications to expunge the communications and strike out relevant paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, finding the high threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception was not met as the alleged im The case was decided by Elaine Yap Chin Gaik. Counsel appearing: Daud Sulaiman (counsel for defendant), Nurul Hafizah (counsel for defendant), Rashveni Dewi (counsel for defendant), Rishikessingam a/l Rajakulasingam (counsel for plaintiff), Sathya Kumardas (counsel for defendant).

Summary

Brunsfield Metropolitan sought to rely on without prejudice settlement communications in its claim against Sime Darby Property regarding a disputed stakeholder sum under a share sale agreement, arguing the communications revealed unambiguous impropriety. The High Court allowed the defendants' applications to expunge the communications and strike out relevant paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, finding the high threshold for the unambiguous impropriety exception was not met as the alleged impropriety required hindsight to appreciate.

What was the outcome of BRUNSFIELD METROPOLITAN SDN BHD v 1. ) SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD 2. ) PACIFI...?

<p>Brunsfield Metropolitan sought to rely on without prejudice settlement communications in its claim against Sime Darby Property regarding a disputed...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Cases Cited (6)

UK (4)

[1988] 3 All ER 737 [1989] AC 1280 [2001] 1 All ER 783 [2004] 1 All ER 1125

MY (2)

[1981] 2 MLJ 17 [2015] MLJU 567