GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD

GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD

Although the Court has power under Aturan 24 KKM 2012 to order third‑party disclosure, the Defendan failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements of direct relevance/necessity, evidence of possession/custody/power, and appropriate timing; the application was filed late, risked unfairness and was oppressive in scope and therefore the Court exercised its discretion to refuse the application.

Citation
JA-22NCC-23-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintif: GLOCOM ENGINEERING PTE LTD; Defendan: MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD; Pihak Ketiga: V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 January 2026
Case Number
JA-22NCC-23-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Guaman Sivil (civil Claim) / Interlocutory Application for Third‑party Disclosure Under Order 24 (pre‑trial, Post‑ptcm)
Outcome
Permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 113 ditolak.
Legal Topics
Third‑party Disclosure, Order 24 Kaedah‑kaedah Mahkamah 2012, Relevance and Necessity, Fishing Expedition, Case Management
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Discovery and Disclosure Indemnity and Contribution Third‑party Disclosure Order 24 Kaedah‑kaedah Mahkamah 2012 Relevance and Necessity Fishing Expedition +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GLOCOM ENGINEERING PTE LTD

Plaintif

MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD

Defendan

V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD

Pihak Ketiga

Procedural Posture

Guaman Sivil (civil Claim) / Interlocutory Application for Third‑party Disclosure Under Order 24 (pre‑trial, Post‑ptcm)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction under Order 24 to order disclosure against a non‑party
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are directly relevant and necessary to issues pleaded including defence and third‑party indemnity/contribution
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown the documents are in the possession, custody or power of the third party

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court has power under Aturan 24 KKM 2012 to order third‑party disclosure, the Defendan failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements of direct relevance/necessity, evidence of possession/custody/power, and appropriate timing; the application was filed late, risked unfairness and was oppressive in scope and therefore the Court exercised its discretion to refuse the application.

Court Disposition

Permohonan Defendan di Lampiran 113 ditolak.

Orders

  • Permohonan Defendan bagi penzahiran dokumen terhadap Pihak Ketiga di bawah Lampiran 113 adalah DITOLAK.
  • Kos adalah kos dalam kausa.