Discovery applications must be timely, relevant, and specific; undue delay and lack of necessity can lead to dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This is the Respondent-Husband's second discovery application ("the Second Discovery Application") in encl 181 pursuant to O 24 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of "), for discovery of specific documents against the Petitioner-Wife.

[2] In the interest of privacy of the parties concerned and sensitivity of the issues, the Petitioner, Respondent and Co-Respondent have been anonymised respectively as GEL, PEL, and MEL.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioner, and Respondent (collectively, "the Parties"), both aged 58 and 59 respectively at the time of the hearing of the Second Discovery Application, were married in September 1989. Their union resulted in two adult children.

[4] Over time, the marriage deteriorated, leading to the Respondent leaving the matrimonial home in July 2018. Subsequently, in January 2020, the Petitioner initiated divorce proceedings by filing a divorce petition ("the Divorce Petition"). In June 2020, the Respondent filed his reply and cross-petition.

[5] While the Divorce Petition was pending, the Petitioner filed a discovery application in May 2021 ("the Petitioner's Discovery Application"), seeking disclosure of 16 categories of documents from the Respondent.

[6] In July 2021, the Respondent responded by filing his own discovery application ("the Respondent's First Discovery Application"), seeking disclosure of 18 categories of documents from the Petitioner.

[7] In December 2021, the Court rendered decisions on both discovery applications, partially allowing the Petitioner's Discovery Application ("the First Decision") and the Respondent's First Discovery Application ("the Second Decision"). Dissatisfied with the outcomes, the Petitioner appealed both decisions, the First Decision vide Appeal No W-02(IM)-96-01/2022 ("Appeal No. 96") and Second Decision vide Appeal No. W-02(IM)-95-01/2022 ("Appeal No. 95"), while the Respondent appealed only the First Decision vide Appeal No W-02(IM)-94-01/2022 ("Appeal No. 94").

[8] The Court of Appeal allowed Appeal No. 96, whilst Appeal No. 95 was dismissed. Appeal No. 94 was allowed in part.

[9] In August 2023, the Respondent filed the Second Discovery Application, seeking disclosure of 21 additional categories of documents from the Petitioner. These 21 categories were divided into two groups:

(a) Fourteen categories of documents previously ordered for discovery against the Petitioner in the Second Decision ("Documents Previously Ordered But For Extended Period"), but now sought for an extended period starting from 2010, rather than from 2017 as initially requested and granted, which are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner's tax assessments;

(ii) The Petitioner's EPF statements together with particulars of withdrawals made;

(iii) The Petitioner's pay slips together with all other relevant documents showing the annual bonuses, director's fees and dividends received from the following companies where the Petitioner is a director and/or shareholder:

• CelesteJG Sdn Bhd ("CelesteJG");

• Hansun Cuili Asset Sdn Bhd ("HCA");

• Sun Cafe Sdn Bhd ("Sun Cafe");

• Sun Pharmaceutical Sdn Bhd ("Sun Pharma");

• Sun Pharmaceutical Sdn Bhd in Brunei ("Sun Pharma Brunei"); and

• Sun Pharmaceutical Pte Ltd in Singapore ("Sun Pharma SG").

(iv) Bank statements from 2010 - present (except for years 2017 -2021) for the following bank accounts which are in the Petitioner's name and/or in joint names:

• HSBC Account No. ********6-108;

• HSBC Account No. ********8-028;

• HSBC Account No. ********1-108;

â€