Deeside Flexy Flowline Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Kevin Forbes Blues 2. ) Blueseas Energy Sdn Bhd 3. ) Pipelife Nederland B.V.

Deeside Flexy Flowline Sdn. Bhd. 1. ) Kevin Forbes Blues 2. ) Blueseas Energy Sdn Bhd 3. ) Pipelife Nederland B.V.

Court granted discovery for the specified classes of documents (excluding abandoned Petronas–EATB documents) because the plaintiff identified the documents with sufficient precision, the documents were or could be in defendants' possession/custody/control, and they were shown to be relevant and necessary to determine whether the defendants contracted with EAT Bhd for supply or ancillary engineering works and whether the 1st defendant misappropriated a business opportunity; temporal scope confined to 17.12.2015–31.9.2019 to avoid undue burden.

Citation
WA-22NCC-148-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Deeside Flexy Flowline Sdn. Bhd.; 1st Defendant: Kevin Forbes Blues; 2nd Defendant: Blue Seas Energy Sdn. Bhd.; 3rd Defendant: Pipelife Nederland B.V.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCC-148-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Division Civil Suit (discovery Application) / Interlocutory Discovery Application Under Order 24 RC 2012 (enclosure 21)
Legal Topics
Discovery Under Order 24 RC 2012, Specific Discovery, Inspection of Documents in Pleadings, Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Inducement to Breach Fiduciary Duties
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Commercial Law Company Law Discovery Under Order 24 RC 2012 Specific Discovery Inspection of Documents in Pleadings Breach of Fiduciary Duties +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deeside Flexy Flowline Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Kevin Forbes Blues

1st Defendant

Blue Seas Energy Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Pipelife Nederland B.V.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Division Civil Suit (discovery Application) / Interlocutory Discovery Application Under Order 24 RC 2012 (enclosure 21)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requested documents are documents within the meaning of Order 24 RC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents are relevant and necessary for a fair disposal of the proceedings or saving costs
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have possession, custody or power of the requested documents

Ratio Decidendi

Court granted discovery for the specified classes of documents (excluding abandoned Petronas–EATB documents) because the plaintiff identified the documents with sufficient precision, the documents were or could be in defendants' possession/custody/control, and they were shown to be relevant and necessary to determine whether the defendants contracted with EAT Bhd for supply or ancillary engineering works and whether the 1st defendant misappropriated a business opportunity; temporal scope confined to 17.12.2015–31.9.2019 to avoid undue burden.