The court ruled that expert reports are inadmissible unless they provide opinions on foreign law or science, emphasizing its role in interpreting legal documents.

A. Introduction

[1] This judgment relates to the following directions given by this court, in the course of case management:

a. The inadmissibility of the expert report filed by the plaintiff; and

b. The filing of witness statements or proposed questions for witnesses, for the purpose of trial.

[2] The reasons for the directions given by the court are set out below.

B. Background Facts

[3] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants arises under a service agreement dated 2 November 2023, entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant ("Service Agreement"‌). Pursuant to the Service Agreement, the plaintiff was engaged as an exempt dealer's personnel, with the job description and duties set out in the Service Agreement.

[4] The plaintiff was terminated on 2 October 2019, after disciplinary proceedings were instituted against her. She claimed the termination was unlawful. She also claimed that the defendants had unjustly appropriated her customers and enriched themselves at her expense; that the defendants were her constructive trustees in respect of these customers and had breached their trust obligations; that the defendants had acted in concert with the intention to defraud her; and that the defendants had unlawfully interfered with her trade or business.

[5] The plaintiff filed this action, claiming inter alia a sum of RM12,992,000 or alternatively RM4,930,000, and general, aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages against the defendants.

[6] The defendants' case is that the 1st defendant had the right to terminate the Service Agreement. The 1st defendant claimed the plaintiff was terminated after an investigation was conducted by the disciplinary committee of the Ambank group of companies, which found that the plaintiff had failed to monitor the trading activities of one of her clients in a manner expected of a person vested with her duties and responsibilities.

C. Case Management Directions

[7] On 1 September 2022, the court fixed trial dates for this suit for a period of six days, commencing from 3 July 2023.

[8] In the course of trial preparation, the court gave pre-trial case management directions to the parties pursuant to O 34 r 2 of the Rules of court 2012 (" ROC "‌). These include directions on the filing of the common bundles of documents, the summaries of cases, the chronologies of cases, the agreed facts, the issues to be tried, the lists of witnesses and witness statements.

[9] The plaintiff is dissatisfied with two directions given by the court.

[10] The first is the court's direction on the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's expert report dated 8 March 2023 ("Report"‌).

[11] The Report was filed in court on 9 March 2023. On 30 March 2023, the defendants informed the court that they were objecting to the admissibility of the Report. Parties were directed to file submissions to address this issue. After hearing submissions on 23 May 2023, the court found the Report to be inadmissible, and directed that the Report not be admitted at trial.

[12] The second is the court's direction given for the witness statements and the proposed lists of questions for witnesses to be filed by 12 June 2023, for the court to assess the relevance of the witnesses, based on these documents.

D. Reasons For The Case Management Directions

Directions On The Report

[13] The first direction the plaintiff is dissatisfied with is the court's direction on the inadmissibility of the Report.

[14] The Report was filed under s 45 of the Evidence Act 1950 (" EA "‌),