Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Relevance of evidence

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2025

JC ADVANCE MARKETING SDN. BHD. SATHYA A/L SELVAM

Citation

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-32-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the categories of documents sought were vague, overly broad and incapable of identification, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevancy and that the documents were within the Defendant's possession, custody or power, the request amounted to a fishing expedition and abuse of process, and the Plaintiff could have obtained relevant documents from the identified third party (MP Advance Enterprise); accordingly discovery was not necessary and costs were awarded.
15 Aug 2018

KOL KHAIRUL AZMIZAL BIN AHMAD NATAL (PEGAWAI MEMERINTAH (KOMANDAN), PUSAT LATIHAN ASAS TENTERA DARAT (PUSASDA) & 5 LAGI MOHD. ZUL AZUAN BIN ABAS

Citation

N-01(IM)-146-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

N-01(IM)-146-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Appeal allowed: High Court order for disclosure was set aside because appellants demonstrated that the majority of requested documents were classified as official secrets under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the applicant failed to establish that disclosure was necessary and relevant to the judicial review (some issues were time‑barred); discovery in judicial review is discretionary and must be strictly confined to necessary, relevant documents, not a fishing expedition.