1. ) SAFAR EHSAN BIN MOHAMAD 2. ) MUHAMMAD HAKIMMIE BIN MOHD IDRIS 1. ) JOHN DOE 2. ) MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHARWANDY BIN SUWANDI YAZID 3. ) [Ketua Polis Negara] 4. ) Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

1. ) SAFAR EHSAN BIN MOHAMAD 2. ) MUHAMMAD HAKIMMIE BIN MOHD IDRIS 1. ) JOHN DOE 2. ) MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHARWANDY BIN SUWANDI YAZID 3. ) [Ketua Polis Negara] 4. ) Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Application for discovery was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove the documents existed and were in defendants' possession or control, the requests were too general and amounted to a fishing expedition, and police investigation documents are confidential/privileged under Section 131 Evidence Act 1950 and therefore not disclosable; costs awarded in the cause.

Citation
NA-21NCvC-8-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: SAFAR EHSAN BIN MOHAMAD; Plaintiff/applicant: MUHAMMAD HAKIMMIE BIN MOHD IDRIS; Respondent/defendant: JOHN DOE; Respondent/defendant: MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHARWANDY BIN SUWANDI YAZID; Respondent/defendant: KETUA POLIS NEGARA; Respondent/defendant: KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI; Respondent/defendant: KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Case Number
NA-21NCvC-8-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (guaman) / Judgment on Interlocutory Discovery Application (order 24) — Appeal Filed Against Prior Decision
Outcome
Notice of application for discovery under Order 24 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Order 24 Rules of Court 2012, Police Investigation Confidentiality, Fishing Expedition, Privilege Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Evidence Criminal Procedure Discovery of Documents Order 24 Rules of Court 2012 Police Investigation Confidentiality Fishing Expedition Privilege Under Evidence Act

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAFAR EHSAN BIN MOHAMAD

Plaintiff/applicant

MUHAMMAD HAKIMMIE BIN MOHD IDRIS

Plaintiff/applicant

JOHN DOE

Respondent/defendant

MUHAMMAD IMRAN SHARWANDY BIN SUWANDI YAZID

Respondent/defendant

KETUA POLIS NEGARA

Respondent/defendant

KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI

Respondent/defendant

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (guaman) / Judgment on Interlocutory Discovery Application (order 24) — Appeal Filed Against Prior Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents sought exist and are or have been in the defendants' possession custody or power
  2. 2 Whether the description of requested documents is sufficiently specific
  3. 3 Whether investigation files/police papers are confidential/privileged and therefore not disclosable

Ratio Decidendi

Application for discovery was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove the documents existed and were in defendants' possession or control, the requests were too general and amounted to a fishing expedition, and police investigation documents are confidential/privileged under Section 131 Evidence Act 1950 and therefore not disclosable; costs awarded in the cause.

Court Disposition

Notice of application for discovery under Order 24 dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for discovery (Lampiran 20) is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.