Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Relevance and possession of documents

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2023

AIRPAK EXPRESS (M) SDN BHD 1. ) NATIONWIDE EXPRESS DISTRIBUTION SDN BHD 2. ) NATIONWIDE EXPRESS COURIER SERVICES BERHAD 3. ) NATIONWIDE EXPRESS HOLDINGS BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-522-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-522-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed the discovery application because the items sought qualify as documents (including ESI), are relevant to core disputed issues (agency, funding, inducement to breach), are necessary for the fair disposal of the action under Order 24 r.8, and the defendants did not deny existence or possession of the documents thereby failing to show the request is a fishing expedition.
31 Jan 2020

Nanthini A/P Palanesay 1. UM Specialist Centre Sdn. Bhd. & 2 Lagi

Citation

WA-24NCVC-1455-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-1455-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff's application for pre-action discovery failed because the supporting affidavits did not specify material facts and particulars of the complications, did not sufficiently specify or demonstrate relevance of the documents sought, and did not show that defendants D2 and D3 possessed medical records or internal investigation reports; D2 and D3 operated a medi‑spa and had only a registration form which had been disclosed; therefore pre-action disclosure under O.24 r.7A was not necessary and the application was dismissed with costs.