Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Necessity test for disclosure

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2022

BA-22NCC-79-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

BA-22NCC-79-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-79-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Dismissal: Plaintiff's application failed because Schedule A and B described documents in overly broad, vague terms lacking reasonable precision; plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevance to pleaded issues, failed to show non-parties likely had the documents, and failed to prove disclosure was necessary to fairly dispose of the suit or save costs; application amounted to a fishing expedition and abuse of process; refused and costs awarded RM6000.00.
16 Feb 2022

LIM HUI JIN 1. ) XXXX 2. ) TIMBALAN 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 5. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

AA-22NCvC-136-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-136-11/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because Plaintiff failed the necessity and specificity requirements for discovery: requested documents were overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition, some items were irrelevant to the Plaintiff's pleaded case, certain documents were non-existent or not in defendants' custody, and some requested material was classified under the Official Secrets Act making disclosure impermissible. The order for discovery under O.24 r.3 or r.7 was therefore not warranted.
16 Jun 2020

BRAND ACE SDN BHD 1. ) RAPID RAIL SDN BHD 2. ) PRASARANA INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-269-05/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 28 was dismissed because the court found the requested documents (tenancy agreements, audited revenue reports 2011–2018, and emails) were not necessary for a fair disposal of the suit nor for saving costs under Order 24: tenancy agreements were not pleaded as material, audited consolidated reports were not in defendants' possession and would impose oppressive burden, emails originated from plaintiff and their loss does not shift plaintiff's burden; the application was also unacceptably delayed and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Malaysia Case Law

BA-22NCC-79-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

LIM HUI JIN 1. ) XXXX 2. ) TIMBALAN 3. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 5. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

BRAND ACE SDN BHD 1. ) RAPID RAIL SDN BHD 2. ) PRASARANA INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD