M WEALTH CORRIDOR SDN. BHD. (Company No: 1143510-P) 1. BJ PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. (Company No.: 910256-V) 2. LIM SOON PENG (NRIC No.: 550225-10-5177) 3. ONG TEE KEAT (NRIC No: 561122-10-5557) 4. CHAN TSE YUEN (NRIC No: 520423-05-5097)
Both applications (Encl.31 for interrogatories and Encl.32 for discovery) were dismissed because the interrogatories sought were a fishing expedition, not necessary to fairly dispose of the cause or save costs, and the discovery requests were overly broad, nonspecific, not shown to be in defendants' possession/custody/power and in some respects privileged; therefore leave and discovery were refused and costs awarded to defendants.
- Citation
- WA-22NCvC-468-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M WEALTH CORRIDOR SDN. BHD.; 1st Defendant: BJ PROPERTIES SDN. BHD.; 2nd Defendant: LIM SOON PENG; 3rd Defendant: ONG TEE KEAT; 4th Defendant: CHAN TSE YUEN
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1900
- Case Number
- WA-22NCvC-468-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit (contract/discovery Interlocutory Applications) / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications for Leave to Serve Interrogatories and for Discovery (encls.31 and 32)
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interrogatories (order 26), Discovery (order 24), Forfeiture of Deposit, Fishing Expedition, Legal Professional Privilege
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M WEALTH CORRIDOR SDN. BHD.
Plaintiff
BJ PROPERTIES SDN. BHD.
1st Defendant
LIM SOON PENG
2nd Defendant
ONG TEE KEAT
3rd Defendant
CHAN TSE YUEN
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (contract/discovery Interlocutory Applications) / Hearing of Interlocutory Applications for Leave to Serve Interrogatories and for Discovery (encls.31 and 32)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to serve interrogatories should be granted under Order 26 (necessity, relevance, saving costs)
- 2 Whether discovery should be ordered under Order 24 (identification, relevance, necessity, possession/custody/power)
- 3 Whether requested materials amount to a fishing expedition or are privileged
Ratio Decidendi
Both applications (Encl.31 for interrogatories and Encl.32 for discovery) were dismissed because the interrogatories sought were a fishing expedition, not necessary to fairly dispose of the cause or save costs, and the discovery requests were overly broad, nonspecific, not shown to be in defendants' possession/custody/power and in some respects privileged; therefore leave and discovery were refused and costs awarded to defendants.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed
Orders
- Enclosure 31 (leave to serve interrogatories) dismissed
- Enclosure 32 (order for discovery) dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment