Pre-action discovery is intended to ascertain if a plaintiff has a viable claim, not to gather evidence or augment a case, and must avoid being a fishing expedition.

Introduction

[1] This case before me is a classic example of the adage "curiosity killed the cat" as the plaintiff, Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, chose to proceed to file this OS [Encl 1] despite clear evidence from the defendant, RHB Bank Berhad ("RHB"), that such a course of action would be ill-advised.

[2] The OS is an application for pre-action discovery by the plaintiff against RHB pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012.

[3] The documents sought by the plaintiff concern steps taken by Bank Negara and RHB to curb money laundering under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 .

[4] The documents sought are as follows:

(a) Minimum Due Diligence Guide for Foreign Exchange Rules - Financial Institution ("MDD");

(b) The compliance framework policy(ies) of RHB pertaining to foreign exchange transactions; and

(c) The internal policy of RHB on the due diligence required for foreign exchange transactions. ("Documents")

[5] I heard counsel on 6 June 2025 and on 2 July 2025 dismissed the OS with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur. The plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal on 2 July 2025. These are my Grounds of Decision.

[6] To my mind, the OS is frivolous as the plaintiff had admitted via their solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025 that:

i. Sums remitted from overseas into their Multi Currency Account are from parties who are not their contracting parties;

ii. The plaintiff had rejected RHB's request for documents from them for verification of these overseas funds as required by Bank Negara for money laundering checks.

iii. The plaintiff insisted RHB must not refund these funds to the sender banks despite having exceeded the standard turnaround time for documents verification.

[See plaintiff's solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025, exhibited in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit Encl 2 at p 36]

[7] In the same letter, the plaintiff pushed the blame to RHB and insisted that RHB showed them that RHB had complied with the verification guidelines set by Bank Negara. [See plaintiff's solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025 at paras 5 to 7 in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit encl 2 at p 36]

[8] I shall elaborate more in my Grounds below.

[9] At the outset, I should point out that plaintiff's counsel has in his written submission in encl 12 wrongly reproduced the prayers. He had added the following words "for the years 2023, 2024 and/or 2025" in his reproduction of prayers [b] and [c] when these words do not appear in his prayers 1[b] and [c] set out in encl 1 OS. Counsel should be more careful in future as it can inadvertently mislead the Court.

Background Facts

Relationship Between The Plaintiff And RHB

[10] The plaintiff is a Malaysian company carrying on a business as a shipping agent.

[11] The plaintiff banks with RHB, more specifically the Port Kelang branch of RHB.

[12] The plaintiff has, inter alia, two accounts with RHB:

i) RHB Account No.: 61207700002040, which is a multi-currency account ("Multi Currency Account"); and

ii) RHB Account No.: 21207700090260, which is a current account ("Current Account").

[13] The plaintiff's Multi Currency Account is used for ship owners and charterers who intend to remit payments to the plaintiff for their services, in USD and/or any other foreign currency aside from MYR.

Disputes Between The Parties

Factual Contentions Of The Plaintiff

[14]