PORT KELANG AUTHORITY v DATIN PADUKA PHANG OI CHOO @ PHANG AI TU (TAN SRI DATUK G. GNANALINGAM & ORS, INTERVENER) [2016] MLJU 1605.
This case concerns a highly sensitive situation, yet one that frequently arises when high-profile individuals and large financial matters are involved.
An individual was sued in a civil action by a statutory body over allegations of mismanagement, abuse of power, and financial interest. The civil claim involved issues of money, administrative decisions, and actions alleged to have caused losses to the suing party.
At the same time, based on the very same facts, there were also investigations and potential criminal charges. In other words, the matters disputed in the civil case could also form the basis of criminal offences — such as abuse of office, criminal breach of trust, or corruption- and finance-related offences.
This is where the real problem begins. In a civil case, a defendant cannot simply remain silent. He is required to:
file affidavits, respond to each allegation, disclose documents, and provide explanations to the court.
However, in the criminal context, every individual has the right not to give any evidence that may incriminate himself.
As a result, the defendant is placed in an extremely dangerous dilemma:
if he answers the civil case, those answers may be used against him in a criminal case;
if he remains silent, he risks losing the civil case without having the chance to defend himself.
Because of this, the defendant applied to the court for a stay of the civil proceedings until the criminal issues were resolved first.
The claimant objected. Their argument was that civil and criminal proceedings are two separate matters, and the civil case should proceed without waiting for the criminal case.
The court then examined the entire situation and emphasised a fundamental principle:
the court must not allow civil proceedings to be used as a tool to compel a person to “confess” or to prematurely disclose his defence before the criminal case is determined.
The court held that allowing the civil case to continue in these circumstances would undermine the defendant’s right to remain silent, amounting to serious injustice. Ultimately, the court allowed the application to stay the civil proceedings, in order to avoid prejudice and to ensure that the administration of justice remains fair and balanced.
Lesson learned:
When you are sued in a civil case while simultaneously facing criminal risk, do not assume that every question must be answered immediately. In law, silence at the right time is a form of protection — not an admission of guilt.
