Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party discovery

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 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 Bank owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in his personal capacity as a director/shareholder because no special legal proximity existed between the plaintiff and the Bank for imposition of a duty in respect of pure economic loss, the Federal Court's authority in RHB Investment Bank is binding, and company law principles (separate personality, proper plaintiff, reflective loss, Turquand rule) preclude the claim.
21 Aug 2025

1. ) MOHD HAMZAVI BIN MD ZAIN 2. ) CALIPH CONSULTANCY GROUP SDN. BHD. FWD TAKAFUL BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCC-125-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-125-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the required conjunctive tests for third party discovery: they did not demonstrate that the requested documents exist as specified or were sufficiently identified, they failed to show those documents were relevant to the pleaded issues (the pleaded breach related to the transfer of 564 agents) and they did not establish that discovery was necessary for fair disposal or cost saving; accordingly the discovery application was dismissed.
31 Mar 2022

IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY 2. ) ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24NCvC-771-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-771-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court concluded the plaintiff's supporting affidavit sufficiently specified the documents, demonstrated belief they relate to matters in question and that D1 and D2 likely have them in their possession/custody/power; discovery was necessary for plaintiff to institute proceedings and to fairly dispose of the matter; exercise of discretion under Order 24 justified granting the application and ordering discovery in terms.
21 Jan 2020

BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1.TODAY'S MARKET (ULU TIRAM) SDN BHD 2.BIGPHASE REALTY SDN BHD 3.TODAY'S MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 4.MK MALL MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 5.TODAY'S HOLDING GROUP SDN BHD 6.TAN CHIN HONG 7.LAO GEOK CHIN 8.ONG KIM HIN 9.T

Citation

JA-22NCVC-9-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCVC-9-01/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that where allegations of fraud or criminal breach of trust are made privity of contract is not a prerequisite for third‑party discovery; the plaintiff had satisfied the six preconditions for third‑party discovery set out in Billion Prima and the documents sought were relevant and likely in the possession, custody or power of the respective defendants, therefore the discovery applications (Enclosures 24 and 44) were allowed.

Malaysia Case Law

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

1. ) MOHD HAMZAVI BIN MD ZAIN 2. ) CALIPH CONSULTANCY GROUP SDN. BHD. FWD TAKAFUL BERHAD

IMPIAN SELAMA COMMUNICATION AND SERVICES SDN BHD 1. ) K. RAVINDRASILAN A/L KRISHNASAMY 2. ) ONE VIEW RESOURCES SDN BHD

BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 1.TODAY'S MARKET (ULU TIRAM) SDN BHD 2.BIGPHASE REALTY SDN BHD 3.TODAY'S MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 4.MK MALL MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 5.TODAY'S HOLDING GROUP SDN BHD 6.TAN CHIN HONG 7.LAO GEOK CHIN 8.ONG KIM HIN 9.T