Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 24 r.7a

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2023

1. ) DELTA-SPORT HANDELSKONTOR GMBH 2. ) ELVES TRADING & CONSULT SDN BHD 1. ) TETUAN HARJIT SANDHU WAN & ASSOCIATES 2. ) HARJIT SINGH SANDHU PIHAK KETIGA MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-396-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-396-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiffs satisfied the statutory conditions for third‑party discovery under Order 24 r.7A: the documents were specified, relevant to whether the defendants complied with their stakeholder undertaking, and likely in Maybank's possession; discovery was necessary to fairly dispose of the suit and to enable efficient resolution, therefore Maybank must produce the requested bank statements and the plaintiffs must pay costs of RM2,000 to the third party.
2 Feb 2023

NOR AZIHAN BINTI ALIAS PMB INVESTMENT BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3372-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3372-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Prayers 1[i]-[v] granted because the plaintiff satisfied O.24 r.7A: the documents were specifically described, directly relevant and necessary to determine whether a viable claim for unpaid entitlements and wrongful termination could be commenced, the request was not a fishing expedition, and the defendant did not dispute possession of those specified documents; accordingly pre-action discovery was necessary to avoid unnecessary litigation and save costs.
19 Jan 2022

HAJJAH YAN BINTI MOHD NORDIN 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CITIBANK BERHAD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 4. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 5. ) AFFIN BANK BERHAD 6. ) BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 7. ) OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 8. ) PUBLIC BANK BERH

Citation

BA-24NCvC-53-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-53-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Pre-action discovery was refused because the plaintiff already possessed sufficient factual particulars to commence proceedings, the application sought overly broad and burdensome disclosure spanning a long period (1995–2021) likely beyond retention limits, failed procedural requirements under O.24 r.7A, risked a fishing expedition and improperly sought confidential third‑party records that should be pursued against the company or by subpoena if litigation is commenced.
31 Jan 2020

Sailajah A/P Selveekam UM Specialist Centre Sdn. Bhd. & 2 Lagi

Citation

WA-24NCVC-1505-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-1505-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's application was dismissed because she failed to satisfy O.24 r.7A: her supporting affidavits did not set out sufficient material facts of the intended proceeding, failed to specify relevant documents, and the defendants did not possess the medical records sought (they operated a medi‑spa providing cosmetic services), therefore discovery was unnecessary and would prejudice defendants.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) DELTA-SPORT HANDELSKONTOR GMBH 2. ) ELVES TRADING & CONSULT SDN BHD 1. ) TETUAN HARJIT SANDHU WAN & ASSOCIATES 2. ) HARJIT SINGH SANDHU PIHAK KETIGA MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

NOR AZIHAN BINTI ALIAS PMB INVESTMENT BERHAD

HAJJAH YAN BINTI MOHD NORDIN 1. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD 2. ) CITIBANK BERHAD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 4. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 5. ) AFFIN BANK BERHAD 6. ) BANK MUAMALAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 7. ) OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 8. ) PUBLIC BANK BERH

Sailajah A/P Selveekam UM Specialist Centre Sdn. Bhd. & 2 Lagi