PEMPETISYEN CHAN LAI JENG 1. ) KOH BOON SIONG 2. ) QUENLY ELIZABETH MARGARET MONARES LICO

PEMPETISYEN CHAN LAI JENG 1. ) KOH BOON SIONG 2. ) QUENLY ELIZABETH MARGARET MONARES LICO

Discovery was granted only where requests were specific, relevant and necessary to the issues of maintenance and division of matrimonial assets and restricted temporally to recent years; vague, overly broad or speculative requests (including those aimed at proving an unpleaded adulterous relationship) were refused as oppressive fishing expeditions.

Citation
BA-33-431-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner Wife: CHAN LAI JENG; Respondent Husband: KOH BOON SIONG; Co Respondent: QUENLY ELIZABETH MARGARET MONARES LICO
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Case Number
BA-33-431-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / High Court Decision on Discovery Application (appeal Filed to Court of Appeal)
Outcome
High Court partially allowed and partially dismissed the Respondent Husband’s discovery application; appeal lodged by Respondent to Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Disclosure, Maintenance, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Property Law Discovery Disclosure Maintenance Division of Matrimonial Assets +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHAN LAI JENG

Petitioner Wife

KOH BOON SIONG

Respondent Husband

QUENLY ELIZABETH MARGARET MONARES LICO

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition / High Court Decision on Discovery Application (appeal Filed to Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery should be ordered against the Petitioner Wife
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant and necessary for fair disposal
  3. 3 Whether requests amount to an impermissible fishing expedition

Ratio Decidendi

Discovery was granted only where requests were specific, relevant and necessary to the issues of maintenance and division of matrimonial assets and restricted temporally to recent years; vague, overly broad or speculative requests (including those aimed at proving an unpleaded adulterous relationship) were refused as oppressive fishing expeditions.

Court Disposition

High Court partially allowed and partially dismissed the Respondent Husband’s discovery application; appeal lodged by Respondent to Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Granted discovery for items (i)(2), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(7.1), (i)(7.2), (i)(7.3), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.1 and 12.2 from Schedule A but restricted temporally to documents from 2020 to date (or within three years as applied to the petition/application)
  • Dismissed discovery for items (i)(1), (i)(3) and (ii)(13) to (15) of Schedule A