Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure/production of documents

Legal area

Court

12 Jun 2025

MANAF BIN BEDO LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

Citation

TB-B52NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

TB-B52NCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff's cause of action accrued in or about 2010 (when the alleged promise/entitlement arose), the 2010 and 2010/2011 board minutes must be read together showing the incentive was conditional and an allocation to management/staff rather than an immediate personal entitlement to the plaintiff, and therefore the claim was barred by the six‑year limitation period; claim dismissed with costs to defendant.
14 Jun 2021

Kerajaan Malaysia COLIN ANDREW PEREIRA

Citation

A51NCvC-212-10-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

A51NCvC-212-10-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court dismissed the defendant's application for disclosure because the claim involves statutory tax assessments that should be determined under the Income Tax Act by the Special Commissioner and the assessments were final in absence of appeal; disclosure was not necessary for fair disposal and could amount to impermissible fishing; counterclaim was barred in government tax recovery proceedings; accordingly the disclosure order was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
16 Mar 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. MOHD RUZAINI BIN SAMINGAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) 2. ROSZAIMI BIN ROSLAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Citation

JB-45-10-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-45-10-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The s.51 application was dismissed because the defence failed to establish the s.51 prerequisites: although the report was referenced in exhibit P34, the defence did not demonstrate necessity and desirability nor that the report was not privileged; police investigation reports/statements recorded after investigation commenced are privileged and the prosecution, not intending to tender the report, had no duty to supply it; therefore the court exercises its discretion to disallow production.
19 Aug 2020

Rosmah binti Mansor

Citation

WA-44-132-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-44-132-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the court was bound by Federal Court precedent that an opposing party does not have a right to demand production of the fiat appointing a prosecutor; the applicant failed to establish a legal right or cogent justification for production; the appointment was public and unchallenged earlier; and absent compelling evidence to the contrary the appointment is presumed legitimate.

Malaysia Case Law

MANAF BIN BEDO LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

Kerajaan Malaysia COLIN ANDREW PEREIRA

PENDAKWARAYA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. MOHD RUZAINI BIN SAMINGAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) 2. ROSZAIMI BIN ROSLAN (I/C NO. : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX)

Rosmah binti Mansor