KIEN YIAP TRADING SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEE KAI WUEN 2. ) LOW NANG HIANG [Notis Pemberhentian di Kandungan 18] PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Lee Yee Wuen 2. ) Guillaume Alexandre Beck 3. ) Benita Wong Shing Yee 4. ) keng yiap trading sdn bhd

KIEN YIAP TRADING SDN. BHD. 1. ) LEE KAI WUEN 2. ) LOW NANG HIANG [Notis Pemberhentian di Kandungan 18] PIHAK TERKILAN 1. ) Lee Yee Wuen 2. ) Guillaume Alexandre Beck 3. ) Benita Wong Shing Yee 4. ) keng yiap trading sdn bhd

Enclosure 73 was allowed because, on the evidence and absence of an admissible rebuttal affidavit, the documents sought were, on the balance of probabilities, in the possession or control of KY and were relevant to core issues (possible payments by defendants on behalf of KY and breach/misappropriation allegations). Enclosure 52 was dismissed because KY's request was overbroad, oppressive, amounted to a fishing expedition, and sought confidential documents relating to SH88 that would prejudice defendants and give the plaintiff unfair advantage; earlier disclosed materials by defendants showed the plaintiff's application was abusive of process.

Citation
JA-22NCC-30-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Counterclaim Defendant: KIEN YIAP TRADING SDN. BHD.; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): LEE KAI WUEN; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): LOW NANG HIANG; Trading Name/defendant: SOON HUAT 88 TIMBER TRADING; Plaintiff (ja 24 NCC 6 02/2019); Counterclaim Defendant: LEE YEE WUEN; Counterclaim Defendant: GUILLAUME ALEXANDRE BECK; Counterclaim Defendant: BENITA WONG SHING YEE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 November 2022
Case Number
JA-22NCC-30-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit With Consolidated Matters; Interlocutory Discovery Applications Under Order 24 ROC / Decision on Discovery Applications (enclosure 52 Dismissed; Enclosure 73 Allowed)
Outcome
Enclosure 52 dismissed with costs; Enclosure 73 allowed with costs in the cause; Enclosure 75 inadmissible for non‑compliance with O.41 r.12 ROC.
Legal Topics
Discovery and Inspection, Order 24 Rules of Court, Admissibility of Foreign Affidavits (o.41 R.12 Roc), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misappropriation, Confidentiality of Commercial Documents, Possession Custody or Power of Documents
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Commercial Law Discovery and Inspection Order 24 Rules of Court Admissibility of Foreign Affidavits (o.41 R.12 Roc) +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KIEN YIAP TRADING SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff (original Action); Counterclaim Defendant

LEE KAI WUEN

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

LOW NANG HIANG

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

SOON HUAT 88 TIMBER TRADING

Trading Name/defendant

LEE YEE WUEN

Plaintiff (ja 24 NCC 6 02/2019); Counterclaim Defendant

GUILLAUME ALEXANDRE BECK

Counterclaim Defendant

BENITA WONG SHING YEE

Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit With Consolidated Matters; Interlocutory Discovery Applications Under Order 24 ROC / Decision on Discovery Applications (enclosure 52 Dismissed; Enclosure 73 Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents requested are 'documents' and 'relevant' within Order 24 ROC
  2. 2 Whether the documents are in the possession, custody or power of the opposing party
  3. 3 Whether the discovery application is a fishing expedition/abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Enclosure 73 was allowed because, on the evidence and absence of an admissible rebuttal affidavit, the documents sought were, on the balance of probabilities, in the possession or control of KY and were relevant to core issues (possible payments by defendants on behalf of KY and breach/misappropriation allegations). Enclosure 52 was dismissed because KY's request was overbroad, oppressive, amounted to a fishing expedition, and sought confidential documents relating to SH88 that would prejudice defendants and give the plaintiff unfair advantage; earlier disclosed materials by defendants showed the plaintiff's application was abusive of process.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 52 dismissed with costs; Enclosure 73 allowed with costs in the cause; Enclosure 75 inadmissible for non‑compliance with O.41 r.12 ROC.

Orders

  • Enclosure 52 dismissed with costs.
  • Enclosure 73 allowed with costs in the cause.