Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre‑action discovery

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

ALI SAID HAMDAN AL RAWAHI 1. ) AHMAD BIN HASSAN 2. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-61-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-61-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the Order 24 r7A threshold: the requests were vague, speculative and overly broad; the bank is not shown to be the exclusive custodian of the contested company documents which are accessible from company secretarial records and SSM; the plaintiff did not demonstrate necessity or exhaustion of alternative remedies; bank confidentiality and potential prejudice to criminal processes outweigh the applicant's need — therefore third-party discovery from the bank is refused and the application dismissed with costs.
24 Nov 2025

List S.P.A. 1. ) YONG CHEE HOW 2. ) Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM)

Citation

WA-24NCC-311-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-311-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Pre-action discovery under Order 24 Rule 7A was justified because the Requested Documents were specified with reasonable precision, were likely to exist within the 1st Defendant's possession custody or power, were relevant to identifying who instructed and facilitated the unauthorised transfer of 150,000 shares and necessary to avoid speculative actions; claims of invasiveness, confidentiality or volume did not outweigh the need for disclosure, including the specified instantaneous messages.
8 Oct 2025

LIM HUN SWEE 1. ) TOMYPAK HOLDINGS BERHAD 2. ) YONG KWET ON 3. ) KEE TONG KIAK 4. ) TO' PUAN ROZANA BINTI HJ. REDZUAN 5. ) AZMI BIN ARSHAD 6. ) LOW CHIUN YIK

Citation

JA-24NCC-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCC-41-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to satisfy the mandatory high threshold under Order 24 r.7A(3) and r.8 Rules of Court 2012 by not demonstrating a bona fide cause of action or how the broadly framed requested documents were directly relevant and necessary to institute proceedings; the application was speculative and an impermissible fishing expedition, especially given plaintiff had been offered two inspections of documents; accordingly pre-action disclosure was refused and costs awarded to defendants.
24 Sept 2025

Yeo Eng Lam Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL)

Citation

WA-24NCvC-1973-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-1973-05/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons, though imperfectly cited, did not render the court without jurisdiction because the defect was procedural; however, the Plaintiff failed the necessity threshold under Order 24 r.7A as the Defendant and the nature of the complaint were known and the documents sought were not essential to identify a cause of action, meaning the application was an impermissible fishing expedition and must be dismissed.
3 Jul 2025

TETUAN RAZIAH & PARTNERS 1. ) ABU HASAN BIN ALI 2. ) HELME BIN HASHIM 3. ) JAMELAH BINTI BAKAR

Citation

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12B-41-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiffs as heirs were entitled to pre-action disclosure because they demonstrated that the sale agreement and related documents exist, are relevant and material to determine a cause of action, and were likely within the defendant's possession or control; lack of letters of administration and limitation do not defeat a procedural pre-action disclosure application; the requested documents were transactional (not privileged) and disclosure was required in the interests of justice. Consequently the Sessions Court order for disclosure was upheld.
2 Jul 2025

MARITIME NETWORK SDN BHD RHB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-24NCC-114-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-114-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show that pre‑action discovery was necessary under Order 24 r.7A: the documents were not necessary to determine a viable claim, the plaintiff had admitted facts which undermined its case and the application amounted to a fishing expedition; dismissal with costs was appropriate.
19 Jun 2025

PEMPETISYEN VIOLET TAN PEI LI CHIA YEW KEONG

Citation

JA-33-462-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-33-462-09/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court allowed discovery only to the extent that documents were relevant, within the petitioner's possession and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity: petitioner must disclose company financial statements for Paragon Group Pte Ltd and Spice Ventures Sdn. Bhd and monthly rental income details for HSD 604469 PTB 24794 (Straits View Property) and Parcel A-26-07 Tower A Paragon Residences within 14 days; all other discovery requests were refused as irrelevant, overbroad, lacking possession/power or constituting a fishing expedition; costs of RM3,000 awarded to petitione…
28 Apr 2025

ZAKIAH BINTI MOHAMAD 1. ) KETUA POLIS DAERAH KOTA BAHRU, KELANTAN 2. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA, MALAYSIA 3. ) Pengarah Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II 4. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

DA-21NCvC-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-21NCvC-8-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the defendants' strike‑out application because the statement of claim on its face failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action: the plaintiff did not properly plead causes actionable against identified public officers as required by ss.5–6 Government Proceedings Act 1956 for vicarious liability of the Government, misapplied Order 15 r.6A when no estate claim/probate/administration was established, and therefore the claim was frivolous/abuse of process and suitable for summary dismissal under Order 18 r.19.
10 Dec 2024

SNAPGO TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD 1. ) YU RUIDAN 2. ) KOH GHIA LING 3. ) KOH WANG THAI 4. ) SOLVENTUS MACHINERY SDN BHD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-168-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-168-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to refuse the plaintiff's pre-action discovery application because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that discovery was necessary at the pre-action stage and risked a fishing expedition; the plaintiff did not discharge the burden to show necessity and particularity required by O.24 r.7A and applicable authorities, and the court noted existing exhibits and available case management procedures made immediate pre-action disclosure unnecessary.
28 Nov 2024

1. ) Shazwani binti Azami 2. ) XXXX 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) Rawang Specialist Hospital Sdn Bhd 3. ) Institut Jantung Negara Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3324-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3324-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to meet mandatory Rule 7A requirements: they did not plead material facts attributing the complications to the defendants, did not identify or describe the specific documents sought or their relevance, and did not show that the named defendants had possession, custody or power of the records; the application was therefore a fishing expedition and the court refused to exercise its discretion to order pre‑action discovery.