Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

LIM KIEN SIANG AIA BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCC-26-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-26-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discovery was granted in part for specific categories (Agency Compensation Handbook and circulars; plaintiff’s commission and sales records; list of policies in plaintiff’s portfolio; non‑privileged investigation and termination records; correspondence relating to LIAM referral) as relevant and necessary; the strike‑out application was dismissed because the claims disclosed triable issues despite allegedly exaggerated quantum; consolidation and transfer to the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) to be consolidated with WA‑22NCC‑858‑12/2024 was ordered as promoting judicial efficienc…
30 Sept 2025

TAN KA HAN AIA BHD.

Citation

JA-22NCC-25-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCC-25-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Discovery ordered in part because specified categories (Agency Compensation Handbook and circulars; plaintiff's commission and sales records; list of policies under plaintiff's portfolio; investigation and termination records subject to privilege; correspondence regarding LIAM referral) are relevant and necessary for fair disposal; strike out application dismissed because claims, however exaggerated, disclose triable issues not plainly unsustainable; consolidation and transfer to the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Commercial Division) and consolidation with WA-22NCC-858-12/2024 granted to promote e…
11 Jun 2025

New Zheng Lei Pantai Medical Centre Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCvC-4633-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-4633-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found that all four requirements of Order 24 rule 7A were met: the plaintiff intends to sue, the defendant is likely to be a party, the requested documents are specific, relevant and within the defendant's control, and disclosure is necessary for the plaintiff to obtain medico-legal advice; the documents were created for clinical/risk management reasons prior to any litigation and thus not protected by litigation privilege, so the pre-action disclosure order was granted.
13 Sept 2024

SHRIDHAYA HOLDINGS SDN BHD (Dalam likuidasi) NATIONAL LAND FINANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

Citation

WA-22NCvC-809-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-809-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The subpoena was properly issued and should not be set aside because the Applicant is a relevant and material witness who executed the Acknowledgement and SPAs; the documents sought are identifiable, relevant to parties' conduct after the option period, not a fishing expedition and no oppression or privilege justified setting aside; application dismissed with costs RM5,000.
6 Jul 2022

SENIBONG COVE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD LEMBAGA PENILAI, PENTAKSIR, EJEN HARTA TANAH DAN PENGURUS HARTA

Citation

WA-24NCvC-60-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-60-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that s31A immunity did not preclude a pre-action discovery application; the Plaintiff satisfied Order 24 r 7A by showing the impugned letter in LPPEH's possession was necessary to identify the wrongdoer and to determine whether to commence defamation proceedings, the request was not a fishing expedition and public policy/statutory function objections were unsubstantiated. Accordingly pre-action discovery was granted in respect of the impugned letter only; the purported LPPEH email was not ordered because LPPEH denied its existence.
11 May 2022

1. ) MOHD MAHADI BIN ZAINUDIN 2. ) NOR ILLIYIN BINTI MOHD BASRI 1. ) DR. KAMARULHAZIQ BIN BAHARUDDIN 2. ) DR. AHMAD FAHMI BIN BAHARUDDIN 3. ) DR. MUHAMMAD RAHMAT BIN YUSOFF 4. ) DR. TOH SHU JIUN 5. ) JURURAWAT WAN MARIAH BINTI WAN MOHD RAHI

Citation

AB-21NCvC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-21NCvC-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On a balance of probabilities the Court accepted the defendants' affidavits that certain requested documents did not exist and therefore could not be ordered produced. The Court found that production of documents that are in defendants' possession (the 2nd Plaintiff's and deceased's full treatment records per paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) and parts of paragraph 2(e) — blood test results, ECG and x-ray of the deceased) was necessary for the fair disposal of the cause and ordered production. Production was to be effected via official letter; other contested items (Investigation Committee minutes, ex…
18 Feb 2022

En. Alex Nandaseri De Silva, Cik Quek Yiing Huey, En. Amrit Pal Singh, Cik Angeline Tay Lee Yin & En. Ng Jun Wei. (Tetuan Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva Advocate & Solicitors) Pn. Izalina binti Hj. Abdullah & Pn. Nur Ashikin binti Mokhtar (T

Citation

WA-41(Ors)-4-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

Ors
Case number

WA-41(Ors)-4-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate erred: where a prosecution witness's s112 CPC statement is offered to the defence after close of the prosecution case, the court may order disclosure under s51 CPC if the twin requirements of necessity and desirability are met; police statements of such offered witnesses are not automatically privileged in this context and English common law disclosure principles apply via s5 CPC; on the facts (advanced age of witness, relevance, potential futility of interview) disclosure of Maurice's s112 statement must be ordered and may be used for impeachment under s113(2).
1 Mar 2021

MORISON AAC TAX ADVISORY SDN. BHD. (NO. SYARIKAT : 201001001833 / 886410-W) MALAYSIAN RUBBER EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL (NO. SYARIKAT : 200001008657/511263-K)

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-279-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-279-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the PWC report and requested documents are specifically relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings; the PWC report is confidential and requires PWC's consent under s131 Evidence Act 1950; the requests are overly broad and amount to a fishing expedition; disclosure would prejudice the plaintiff, delay proceedings and increase costs; accordingly the trial court's refusal to order disclosure was correct and is upheld.
2 Feb 2021

ASPALELA BINTI RAMLY DR. TAWFIQUE HASAN CHOWDHURY

Citation

B53F-20-10-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

B53F-20-10-2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the statement of claim adequately particularised the allegedly defamatory material (referencing the letter of 2.10.2020 and paragraphs 9–16) and that any failure to plead every word exactly is not fatal; the defendant failed to identify specific deficiencies; therefore the strike out application was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process and must be dismissed with costs.