Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1097
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
YAYASAN KHAZANAH – Appellant
Versus
DINA IZAZI ZULQAISAR & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-731-12/2022]
Discovery of documents is essential for fair resolution; relevance is broad, and confidentiality cannot prevent necessary disclosure.
Headnote:(A) Rules of 2012 - Order 24 r 3 and 7; Order 92 r 4 - Discovery of documents - Defendants sought discovery of documents related to other scholarship holders to substantiate claims of unfair treatment by the plaintiff - Court found documents relevant for fair disposal of action and allowed the application. (Paras 1, 3, 36)
(B) Discovery - Relevance of documents - Documents are discoverable if they assist in advancing a party's case or undermining the opponent's case - The test of relevance is broad, encompassing evidence that may lead to further material evidence. (Paras 19, 25)
(C) Confidentiality - Confidentiality does not constitute a valid ground to resist discovery if documents are necessary for fair disposal of proceedings - Court can impose conditions to safeguard disclosed information. (Paras 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleged breach of a scholarship agreement by the defendants, who claimed unfair treatment and discriminatory refusal of deferment of bond service. The plaintiff unilaterally amended its policy, affecting the defendants' employment opportunities. (Paras 2, 8, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the defendants' application for discovery of documents, emphasizing the necessity of these documents for a fair resolution of the dispute. (Paras 3, 36)
Issues: The main issues included whether the requested documents were relevant to the claims of unfair treatment and whether confidentiality could prevent their discovery. (Paras 14, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requested documents were essential for verifying the defendants' allegations of arbitrary treatment and that confidentiality alone could not prevent discovery if necessary for justice. (Paras 28, 34)
Result: Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 11)
Introduction
[1] This was an application by the defendants seeking discovery of various documents pursuant to O 24 r 3 and 7 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 . The documents sought relate primarily to correspondence, agreements and other materials concerning eight other scholarship holders of the plaintiff and their arrangements regarding deferment of scholarship bond service.
[2] The dispute between the parties relates to an alleged breach of a scholarship agreement by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations under the said agreement. In defence, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff had acted arbitrarily and unfairly. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had refused to grant a deferment of the first defendant's scholarship bond service. According to the defendants, this refusal was discriminatory as the plaintiff had purportedly permitted similar deferments for other scholars under similar circumstances.
[3] After having carefully considered the application and submissions before me, I found the documents sought are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the action and that allowed the defendants' application. The plaintiff was not satisfied and appealed.
Brief Background Facts
[4] 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 program 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. The scholarship agreement was formalized in October 2018.
[5] 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 companies as this would, according to the plaintiff's representative, add value to the development of the scholarship holders.
[6] 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 program and graduated with nothing less than a First Class Honours in June 2021. In October 2020, prior to her graduation, she initiated the process of applying for employment opportunities. Her applications included positions with several Fortune 500 companies, among them was BlackRock Inc. According to the defendants, these efforts were consistent with the representations allegedly made by the plaintiff regarding post¬graduation employment opportunities.
[8] On 13 November 2020, the plaintiff unilaterally amended its Placement and Deferment Policy. Under the revised policy, all scholarship holders were required to return to Malaysia immediately upon graduation to fulfil their scholarship bond obligations.
[9] The plaintiff communicated this policy revision to the scholarship holders via email. However, no such communication was made to the sureties, despite their obligations under the scholarship agreement. This unilateral revision significantly altered the terms and expectations previously understood by the parties.
[10] In early April 2021, the 1st defendant received an offer of employment from BlackRock Inc. which she subsequently accepted. Following this, the 1st defendant formally submitted a request to the plaintiff seeking a deferment of her scholarship bond service. However, the plaintiff refused her request. The refusal effectively prevented the 1st
