Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection of documents

Legal area

Court

20 Sept 2024

MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SANJAY BIN ABDULLAH (YANG BERAMAL ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA TETUAN MUHAMMAD ZAHIR) 1. ) MEGA TAIKUN HOLDIGS SDN BHD 2. ) EURASIA VENTURE SDN BHD 3. ) RAJA MANAKIAM A/L A.PONUSAWMY

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

High Court upheld the Sessions Court's order for discovery under O.24 r.10 because the plaintiffs identified documents or classes of documents logically connected to pleaded facts (letters, banker’s cheques, client account statements) and showed relevance and possession/power by D4; however the consequential order requiring plaintiffs to file a Reply/Defence to Counterclaim after receipt of documents (paragraph (c) of the 2.8.2023 order) was set aside because any amendment or further pleading should be made by application under O.20 r.5, not by the discovery order.
16 May 2024

1. ) Wong Pei Tze 2. ) Wong Teck Wei Cheras Property Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-111-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-111-01/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court allowed the production and inspection order because the requested architect's letters were directly relevant to the core disputed issue (extensions of time for vacant possession), were in the defendant's possession, plaintiffs had not received them, the order was necessary for fair disposal and to avoid surprise and additional pleadings, and the procedural non-compliance was a curable irregularity not fatal to the application.
14 Jun 2023

1. ) COSMO-OMEGA SDN BHD 2. ) BILLION TRIUMPH SDN BHD 3. ) LIP AH CHUN 4. ) LOO MUN WAI 5. ) LOO MUN KEONG 6. ) LOO MUN SOON 7. ) CHEN WAI KOUNG 8. ) CHEN WAI LOAN 9. ) CHIN WEI SENG 10. ) CHIN WAI HENG 1. ) MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-340-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-340-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 24 to grant discovery in part: it found that specific categories of documents relating to the 30 units belonging to the plaintiffs were relevant and necessary for a fair trial and that defendants had identified and could produce documents in their possession; broader categories were refused where defendants showed lack of possession, relevance or where production would be unnecessary or oppressive; Land Acquisition Act did not negate the need for disclosure at interlocutory stage.
11 Jan 2023

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MURUGAVELOO A/L NARAYANAN

Citation

JA-29PB-479-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-29PB-479-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Creditor failed to demonstrate special circumstances or good cause under Rule 283 to justify extension of the 21‑day statutory period under s33B(4); the court will not exercise s93(4) discretion to extend time in these facts and the chamber application to extend time is dismissed.
27 May 2022

GOH BEE LING EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-340-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-340-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for discovery was dismissed because none of the requested documents were referred to in the pleadings and the Plaintiffs' financial standing was not a matter in question necessary to determine whether the alleged payments were made, so discovery under Order 24 Rule 10 was not available.
16 Jan 2022

KOMPLEKS PERKAYUAN KELANTAN SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 44891-t) HUSAM BIN MUSA

Citation

DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-23CY-06-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applications K135 and K137 dismissed because defendant failed to show necessity or specificity for the additional documents, filed applications late in breach of PKSB directions without adequate explanation, sought documents some of which were irrelevant or already in defendant's pleadings/possession, and the applications amounted to abuse/fishing; dismissal with costs was required to uphold robust case management and prevent delay.
6 Dec 2021

SU TIANG JOO CHAI AH MING

Citation

WA-23NCVC-34-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-23NCVC-34-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court allowed general discovery orders sought under Order 24 r 3(4) (prayers 1–3 of Enclosure 71) but refused specific discovery of the WhatsApp communications and itemized telephone bills and dismissed the defendant's discovery application because the inspected WhatsApp bundle contained no relevant statements, some sought documents were denied to exist, and the specific requests amounted to speculative fishing expeditions; costs in the cause was ordered.

Malaysia Case Law

MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SANJAY BIN ABDULLAH (YANG BERAMAL ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA TETUAN MUHAMMAD ZAHIR) 1. ) MEGA TAIKUN HOLDIGS SDN BHD 2. ) EURASIA VENTURE SDN BHD 3. ) RAJA MANAKIAM A/L A.PONUSAWMY

1. ) Wong Pei Tze 2. ) Wong Teck Wei Cheras Property Sdn. Bhd.

1. ) COSMO-OMEGA SDN BHD 2. ) BILLION TRIUMPH SDN BHD 3. ) LIP AH CHUN 4. ) LOO MUN WAI 5. ) LOO MUN KEONG 6. ) LOO MUN SOON 7. ) CHEN WAI KOUNG 8. ) CHEN WAI LOAN 9. ) CHIN WEI SENG 10. ) CHIN WAI HENG 1. ) MENTERI BESAR SELANGOR (PEMERBAD

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN MURUGAVELOO A/L NARAYANAN

GOH BEE LING EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD

KOMPLEKS PERKAYUAN KELANTAN SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 44891-t) HUSAM BIN MUSA

SU TIANG JOO CHAI AH MING