Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery of documents

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

NOREDA BINTI MOHD NOOR 1. ) PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN DUTARIA CONDOMINIUM 2. ) Ooi Joe Earn (Bagi Guaman Wa-a53-10-02/2025) 3. ) Roselina Selvanee (Bagi Guaman Wa-a53-8-01/2025)

Citation

WA-A52-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52-16-01/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The application was dismissed because the request for all complaint records was overly broad, not shown to be necessary to dispose of the substantive liability between the parties, amounted to a fishing expedition, failed the specificity requirement of Order 24 Kaedah 7A, and would unduly prejudice third‑party privacy protected by PDPA; accordingly the balance favors refusal with costs.
21 Dec 2025

JC ADVANCE MARKETING SDN. BHD. SATHYA A/L SELVAM

Citation

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the categories of documents sought were vague, overly broad and incapable of identification, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevancy and that the documents were within the Defendant's possession, custody or power, the request amounted to a fishing expedition and abuse of process, and the Plaintiff could have obtained relevant documents from the identified third party (MP Advance Enterprise); accordingly discovery was not necessary and costs were awarded.
27 May 2025

PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. MALAYSIA AIRPORTS (SEPANG) SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-290-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-290-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applications to amend and for discovery were dismissed because the proposed amendments sought to introduce matters and reliefs that constituted new causes of action or pre-emptive claims arising after the writ (premature under the relation-back doctrine), and the discovery request was overbroad, vague, prejudicial, amounted to a fishing expedition, was not shown to be necessary or tied to the pleaded case, and would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff especially given imminent trial dates.
28 Apr 2025

WARISAN MEDICQ GROUP SDN. BHD. SRI JANAKI DEVI A/P PALAKASTIN

Citation

WA-22NCvC-550-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-550-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found that the threefold test for discovery was met: the requested Accounting Records, Bank Statements and CMS Documents are documents in the defendants' possession/custody/power (including via company secretary/accountant) and are relevant to the disputed factual allegations (misuse/misappropriation of funds, non-payment of salary/profits, verification of income). The CMS Documents were ordered produced but subject to a protective Terms of Undertaking restricting use to the proceedings, limiting distribution to enumerated parties (patients/parents for verification, accountant, audi…
30 Dec 2024

NAVANEETH A/L PERPAKARAN RETHA A/P NADARAJAH

Citation

AI-A72NCvC-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AI-A72NCvC-4-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application was dismissed because, although the document sought exists and is in the Defendant's possession, the Plaintiff failed to show the statement of account was necessary or sufficiently relevant to the fair disposal of the case or to save costs; Plaintiff already produced transaction receipts and other evidence rendering the bank statements unnecessary, and the court must guard against fishing expeditions and unnecessary intrusion into personal data.
10 Dec 2024

RAHMAH BEE BINTI O KATTI MOHAMAD ETIKA MAJUJAYA SDN BHD

Citation

BA-12A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12A-5-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the requested client account documents were relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the claim and for saving costs because they directly relate to the subject matter of the claim (the RM900,000.00 stakeholder sum) and materially affect the credibility of the Defence; accordingly the Sessions Court order for discovery was affirmed and production was ordered within seven days, and the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00.
5 Dec 2024

1. ) N2N CONNECT BERHAD 2. ) NGN CONNECTION SDN BHD 3. ) N2N GLOBAL SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 4. ) HERMES BOS SDN BHD 5. ) NETINFINIUM SOLUTIONS SDN BHD 1. ) CHUA TIONG HOONG 2. ) AHMAD ASHRAF BIN AZMAN 3. ) SHYAM SUNDAR RAYUDU 4. ) WONG VOON FUI 5

Citation

W-02(IM)(IPCv)-32-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(IPCv)-32-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal in respect of discovery against Defendants 1, 5 and 6, holding that the amended Schedule A established the documents were relevant and necessary and had been in the defendants' possession/custody/power and that failure to disclose would prejudice a fair trial; confidentiality and volume do not defeat discovery and can be managed by protective orders; however the appeal as against Defendants 2–4 was not permissible because a valid consent judgment between those parties estops the plaintiffs from pursuing the claims/discovery against them.
26 Nov 2024

CLIMAX SDN BD 1. ) NICHOLASIA ELSE A/P A.G DE CRUZ 2. ) SHAUN ADRIAN NETTO 3. ) AXIS DINER SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-162-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-162-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to prove that the document produced at MBPJ was the same document relied upon in the suit and thus failed to discharge the burden required for committal; the Plaintiff should have pursued discovery from MBPJ under Order 24 and a pre-trial committal application was mala fide and an abuse of process.
11 Nov 2024

ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS 2. ) GOBINDRAN A/L THIRUNAVAKARASU 3. ) ATLASINAR SDN BHD 4. ) MOHD JAMAL BIN HAJI OMAR 5. ) AFFIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-88-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-88-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The discovery application was dismissed because the documents sought were overly broad and constituted a fishing expedition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate necessity for fair disposal or cost saving under Order 24 Rule 8 ROC 2012, there was inordinate unexplained delay in applying for discovery and many requested documents were already produced or irrelevant; the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden required for an order for discovery.
21 Aug 2024

EKVE SDN BHD 1. ) PENTADBIR TANAH, DAERAH GOMBAK 2. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 3. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 4. ) PRISTINE POWER SDN BHD 5. ) CHRISTINE CHIN SIEW LIN

Citation

BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-21NCvC-31-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for discovery was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were relevant and necessary to the issues before the court, the requests were overly broad and nonspecific amounting to a fishing expedition, and the applicants’ delay in filing the application was prejudicial to the respondent; therefore discovery was not justified and was refused with costs.