H A Y H E R

H A Y H E R

Application dismissed because the Plaintiff sought personal identifying information rather than discoverable documents; the Plaintiff failed to prove the Defendant had or had had the documents in her possession, custody or power; and the Plaintiff failed to show a bona fide cause of action against the Defendant as vicarious liability was improbable (the individuals were independent contractors) and alternative avenues (police, Head of Security Zarol) were not pursued.

Citation
WA-24F-358-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIFF: HAY; DEFENDANT: HER
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Case Number
WA-24F-358-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (pre Action Discovery Under Order 24 R.7 A, Rules of Court 2012) / Hearing and Judgment on Application for Pre Action Discovery (dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Pre Action Discovery, Order 24 Rule 7 a, Originating Summons Intitulement Requirements (order 7 R.2(1 A)), Possession Custody or Power, Distinction Between Documents and Information, Norwich Pharmacal / Third Party Disclosure
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Discovery and Inspection Family Law (custody) Defamation Vicarious Liability Pre Action Discovery Order 24 Rule 7 a Originating Summons Intitulement Requirements (order 7 R.2(1 A)) +3 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 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HAY

PLAINTIFF

HER

DEFENDANT

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (pre Action Discovery Under Order 24 R.7 A, Rules of Court 2012) / Hearing and Judgment on Application for Pre Action Discovery (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant sought discoverable documents or merely information
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought were or had been in the defendant's possession, custody or power
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had a bona fide/genuine cause of action against the defendant to justify pre-action discovery

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the Plaintiff sought personal identifying information rather than discoverable documents; the Plaintiff failed to prove the Defendant had or had had the documents in her possession, custody or power; and the Plaintiff failed to show a bona fide cause of action against the Defendant as vicarious liability was improbable (the individuals were independent contractors) and alternative avenues (police, Head of Security Zarol) were not pursued.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Preliminary objections by both parties dismissed
  • Originating summons for discovery dismissed