Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of documents

Legal area

Court

1 Oct 2025

MOHD SAIFUL RAZIEE BIN TUKIMAN 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB KONTINJEN JOHOR 2. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

JB-25-6-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-25-6-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no procedural illegality, irrationality or disproportionality: the charges contained necessary particulars, relevant documents were provided, written representations satisfied the right to be heard, Regulations 35 and 37 were complied with, and there was no legal duty to furnish reasons in the circumstances; therefore the Applicants' judicial review applications are dismissed.
3 Jul 2025

TETUAN RAZIAH & PARTNERS 1. ) ABU HASAN BIN ALI 2. ) HELME BIN HASHIM 3. ) JAMELAH BINTI BAKAR

Citation

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs as heirs were entitled to pre-action disclosure because they demonstrated that the sale agreement and related documents exist, are relevant and material to determine a cause of action, and were likely within the defendant's possession or control; lack of letters of administration and limitation do not defeat a procedural pre-action disclosure application; the requested documents were transactional (not privileged) and disclosure was required in the interests of justice. Consequently the Sessions Court order for disclosure was upheld.
6 Jan 2025

HIQ RESOURCES SDN BHD 1. ) LIONG SHAN GROUP SDN BHD 2. ) ADVANTAGE COMMON SDN BHD

Citation

CB-22NCvC-19-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-19-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that the pleadings and affidavits disclosed prima facie serious issues to be tried as to whether the agreement was a sale or an agency and whether there was a breach; damages would likely be inadequate and the Defendants' financial position suggested inability to meet damages; balancing the convenience and risk of irreparable harm favored the Plaintiff; accordingly the interlocutory injunction as sought in the originating application (KM 4) was granted with costs.
31 Jan 2024

Run Drift Trading Sdn Bhd Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Citation

BL-B54-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-B54-2-03/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court granted pre-action discovery in part, holding that the requested documents relating to container identification, location, ownership, contents, movement logs, list of affected containers and insurance/adjuster reports are relevant and necessary to enable the plaintiff to identify potential defendants, causation and quantum; adjuster reports are not automatically protected by litigation privilege and must be disclosed where necessary; defendant must permit inspection of original copies of responsive documents in its possession, custody or power within 14 days; costs of the application an…
27 Sept 2023

PEMPETISYEN YEE YEW CHUIN LEE BEE PENG

Citation

PA-33-341-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-33-341-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Preliminary objection dismissed; where documents themselves (not merely affidavits of particulars) are sought the court may order production under Order 24 r.10 ROC 2012 to fill gaps in the DMPR regime; the specific categories sought (pay‑slips, income tax assessments, bank statements within the court's jurisdiction, credit card statements, EPF statements and fixed deposit/unit trust/investment records) from 1.1.2020 to the date of the order are relevant, in the Petitioner’s possession or power and necessary to fairly determine the maintenance claim and prepare the trial bundle, and therefore…
12 Sept 2023

Mohamad Adri' Ammar bin Mohamad 1. ) SURUHANJAYA PASUKAN POLIS 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

P-01(A)-100-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

P-01(A)-100-02/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court held that on the balance of probabilities the appellant had contemporaneously raised lack of evidence and likely requested documents; in any event disciplinary authorities have an overriding duty to furnish any documentary evidence relied upon to an officer required to 'exculpate' himself. The respondents' failure or refusal to furnish the Report and other potentially determinative documents breached natural justice and vitiated the disciplinary proceedings; dismissal was null and void, warranting set aside, reinstatement, inquiry into damages and costs.
16 Feb 2023

HISHAM BIN JALALUDDIN 1. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB SURUHANJAYA PERKHIDMATAN AWAM, NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN 3. ) LEMBAGA RAYUAN TATATERTIB SURU

Citation

BA-25-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-94-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed: the court held the requested documents were classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and cannot be declassified for this purpose; applicant is entitled only to inspect public documents; several requests were too broad, vague and could amount to a fishing expedition; some documents were not in respondents' possession, custody or power, therefore disclosure cannot be ordered.
4 Nov 2022

1. ) CHONG JOO TIAN 2. ) HARIKRISHNAN A/L KANAPATHY 3. ) NG GOON FOON (Kesemuanya didakwa sebagai ahli-ahli Jawatankausa Tatatertib Aduan No. DC/15/0424) 4. ) JAWATANKUASA TATATERTIB PEGUAM-PEGUAM HOW CHEE HONG

Citation

W-02(A)-583-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

A
Case number

W-02(A)-583-03/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the Disciplinary Committee had jurisdiction to order production of the documents under s103B LPA 1976 and the documents were either not privileged or fell within the fraud/crime exception to s126 Evidence Act 1950; moreover the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory internal remedy under s103EA(1) LPA 1976, warranting reversal of the High Court decision.
31 Oct 2022

Win Far Trading Sdn Bhd 1. ) Ocean Network Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 2. ) Spica Services (M) Sdn Bhd

Citation

JA-A54-19-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

JA-A54-19-08/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the plaintiff complied with Order 24 r.7A: the requested documents were specifically described, relevant to issues likely to arise, and shown to be in the possession or control of the named defendants; the application was not a fishing expedition; accordingly pre-action disclosure was just and should be ordered, with costs awarded to the plaintiff (RM2,000).
29 Nov 2021

ONG KOOI HWA MAX PINE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS SDN. BHD.

Citation

PB-B52NCvC-17-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-B52NCvC-17-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The disclosure application was dismissed because the court accepted the defendant's contention that the original 'final income statements' no longer existed after a software migration and that the defendant had provided a 'member statement report' which had the same effect for proving the plaintiff's claim; the plaintiff failed to show that the supplied report materially differed from the requested documents. Costs of RM3,000 were awarded against the plaintiff.