SNAPGO TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) YU RUIDAN 2. ) KOH GHIA LING 3. ) KOH WANG THAI 4. ) SOLVENTUS MACHINERY SDN BHD

SNAPGO TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) YU RUIDAN 2. ) KOH GHIA LING 3. ) KOH WANG THAI 4. ) SOLVENTUS MACHINERY SDN BHD

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiff's pre-action discovery application because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that discovery was necessary at the pre-action stage and risked a fishing expedition; the plaintiff did not discharge the burden to show necessity and particularity required by O.24 r.7A and applicable authorities, and the court noted existing exhibits and available case management procedures made immediate pre-action disclosure unnecessary.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-168-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: SNAPGO TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD; Defendant 1: YU, RUIDAN; Defendant 2: KOH GHIA LING; Defendant 3: KOH WANG THAI; Defendant 4: SOLVENTUS MACHINERY SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 December 2024
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-168-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Discovery Application (pre Action Discovery) / Interlocutory Hearing / Pre Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory discovery application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Pre Action Discovery, Order for Discovery, Fishing Expedition, Breach of Duty, Theft/ Conversion of Assets
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Tort (conspiracy) Fiduciary Duties and Misappropriation Pre Trial Discovery Pre Action Discovery Order for Discovery Fishing Expedition +2 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SNAPGO TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

YU, RUIDAN

Defendant 1

KOH GHIA LING

Defendant 2

KOH WANG THAI

Defendant 3

SOLVENTUS MACHINERY SDN BHD

Defendant 4

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Discovery Application (pre Action Discovery) / Interlocutory Hearing / Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff proved necessity for pre-action discovery under Order 24 ROC 2012 and related authorities
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant and in the possession, custody or power of the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes a fishing expedition or is bona fide and sufficiently particularised

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiff's pre-action discovery application because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that discovery was necessary at the pre-action stage and risked a fishing expedition; the plaintiff did not discharge the burden to show necessity and particularity required by O.24 r.7A and applicable authorities, and the court noted existing exhibits and available case management procedures made immediate pre-action disclosure unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory discovery application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for pre-action discovery is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the defendants.