Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance of documents

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2025

CHAN LENNON (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) TAN HUEY ZI (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING)

Citation

BA-12ANCC-21-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-21-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the Ambank bank statement for November 2022 satisfied the requirements of Order 24 r.3 (document, relevance, possession) and affirmed the Sessions Court's order compelling its production; however, bank statements after November 2022 were not necessary at this stage under Order 24 r.8 and the related part of the discovery order was set aside as too wide and amounting to a fishing expedition; the Respondent remains entitled to seek further discovery depending on what the November statement discloses.
26 Nov 2024

Sumathi a/p Chandrakumar Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCvC-3344-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-3344-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the supporting affidavit failed to comply with Rule 7A: it did not disclose material facts or a cause of action, failed to specify or describe the documents sought, failed to show their relevance or that the Government had possession, and constituted a fishing expedition; therefore no pre-action discovery was ordered.
5 Sept 2022

1. ) ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD 2. ) AM METALS SERVICES CENTRE SDN BHD 1. ) OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD 2. ) GUANDONG GUANG XIN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS CO. LTD 3. ) Guang Dong Yue Xin Asset Management Co. Ltd 4. ) Yip Kwong Nin (Juga Dikenal

Citation

BA-22NCC-109-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-109-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The discovery application was dismissed because the bulk of the documents sought were not shown to be relevant to the disputes between the 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant, included periods outside the 1st Defendant's involvement, were overly wide and oppressive and therefore not necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or saving costs.
24 Mar 2022

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD JB JURUNILAI BERSEKUTU (KAJANG) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-294-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-294-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the defendant was entitled to limited and specific discovery because the requested documents (loan application process/guidelines as of 1-10-2014; credit report and/or approval for borrower and guarantor as of 1-10-2014; borrower and guarantor application forms) are relevant, likely within the plaintiff's possession and necessary for the defendant's defence regarding causation and contributory negligence; conversely the court dismissed the defendant's application for interrogatories under Order 26 r6 as unnecessary, overly broad and a fishing expedition.
22 Mar 2022

ABDUL SOMAD BIN YAHYA 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-25-363-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-25-363-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Applicant did not dispute the core factual basis of the charges (the dates of absence) and failed to demonstrate any inaccuracy or contradiction in the respondents' affidavits; the documents sought relate to the merits of the disciplinary decision rather than to procedural irregularity in decision-making; discovery in judicial review is limited and should not be allowed to enable a merits challenge—therefore the discovery application was unnecessary and dismissed.
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.
11 Feb 2020

CI LUMIX CI GEO DEWAN PERNIAGAAN MELAYU MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-22NCVC-178-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-178-04/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold for discovery because the request for all correspondence was too wide and lacked the required certainty and specificity, and the three statutory/common law requirements for discovery were not met; therefore Enclosure 40 was dismissed.

Malaysia Case Law

CHAN LENNON (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) TAN HUEY ZI (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING)

Sumathi a/p Chandrakumar Kerajaan Malaysia

1. ) ALUPANORAMA METALS SDN BHD 2. ) AM METALS SERVICES CENTRE SDN BHD 1. ) OKAYA INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD 2. ) GUANDONG GUANG XIN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS CO. LTD 3. ) Guang Dong Yue Xin Asset Management Co. Ltd 4. ) Yip Kwong Nin (Juga Dikenal

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD JB JURUNILAI BERSEKUTU (KAJANG) SDN BHD

ABDUL SOMAD BIN YAHYA 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA BUKIT AMAN 2. ) Ketua Polis Negara 3. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

SU TIANG JOO CHAI AH MING

CI LUMIX CI GEO DEWAN PERNIAGAAN MELAYU MALAYSIA