Compliance with discovery orders is mandatory; non-compliance leads to automatic dismissal of claims, reflecting the authority of judicial orders.

(Enclosure 70)

Introduction

[1] This is the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The original notice of application was later amended. The amended notice of application is subsequently filed as Enclosure [126], The application arises from the plaintiff's failure to comply with a discovery order granted by this Court on 4 November 2024.

[2] The discovery order required the plaintiff to produce and furnish specific documents and to file an affidavit verifying the documents within 30 days from the date of the order. The order expressly provided that failure to comply within the stipulated timeframe would result in the automatic dismissal of the statement of claim without the need for further application.

[3] The defendants contend that the plaintiff did not comply with the discovery order within the prescribed period. As such, the defendants posit that the condition for automatic dismissal of the statement of claim has been fulfilled and the plaintiffs claim must therefore be struck out.

[4] The plaintiff does not dispute that there was non-compliance of the discovery order within the time fixed. However, the plaintiff contends that the delay was caused by reasonable and justifiable circumstances. The plaintiff further argues that in the interests of justice, the claim should not be struck out and the matter ought to proceed to trial on the merits.

Brief Background Of Facts

[5] Sometime in July 2018, the plaintiff offered the Khazanah Global Scholarship Award to the 1st defendant. The award was granted to enable the 1st defendant to pursue a Bachelor of Science degree programme in Statistics, Economics and Finance at University College London. The 2nd and 3rd defendants, being the 1st defendant's parents, executed the scholarship agreement as sureties.

[6] In or around August 2018, a representative of the plaintiff allegedly made representations to the scholarship holders including the 1st defendant. It was purportedly conveyed that upon completing their studies, they would be allowed to gain employment with Fortune 500.00 companies as this would, according to the plaintiff's representative, add value to the development of the scholarship holders. Additionally, it was represented that they could defer their scholarship bond service for a period of up to twice the duration of the bond obligation. These assurances were allegedly made to encourage acceptance of the scholarship and to outline the flexibility of the bond requirements.

[7] The 1st defendant commenced her undergraduate studies in October 2018. She successfully completed her programme and graduated with nothing less than a First Class Honours in June 2021. In October 2020 prior to her graduation, she started the process of applying for employment opportunities. Her applications included positions with several Fortune 500.00 companies, among them was BlackRock Inc.

[8] On 13 November 2020, the plaintiff amended its Placement and Deferment Policy. Under the revised policy, all scholarship holders were required to return to Ma