Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2019
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SANJAY ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
MEGA TAIKUN HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12ANCvC-126-08/2023]
An appellate court will not intervene unless the lower court's decision is plainly wrong; the necessity for document production was established by the plaintiffs.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 29 - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24, Rule 10 and Order 92, Rule 4 - Appeal against discovery order - The court found that the plaintiffs established the elements for an order for discovery, requiring the defendant to produce documents related to a payment of RM500,000.00. (Paras 27, 28, 44)
(B) Appellate Intervention - The appellate court will not intervene unless the lower court's decision is shown to be plainly wrong, lacking judicial appreciation of evidence. (Paras 32, 33)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent representations by the defendants regarding a contract for cleaning services, claiming RM500,000.00 was improperly released by the defendant. (Paras 11-20)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs established the necessity for documents related to the payment, and the defendant failed to justify refusal to produce them. (Paras 27, 44)
Issues: Whether the order for discovery was properly made and if the defendant had grounds to refuse document production. (Paras 34-46)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the need for relevant documents in the possession of the defendant and that the plaintiffs had met their burden of proof. (Paras 27, 44)
Result: The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside one part of the lower court's order. (Paras 49)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant who is the 4th Defendant ('D4') in the Sessions Court Civil Suit No: WA-B52-22-04/2021 ('Suit 22') against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') on 2 August 2023 in allowing the Respondents' application for discovery.
[2] After having considered the Record of Appeal and submissions of the parties, I allow D4's appeal only in part for the reasons as elaborated in the succeeding part of these Grounds of Judgment ('GoJ').
[3] The parties shall be referred to as they are in Suit 22.
Background Facts
[4] The 1st Plaintiff ('P1') is a company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at Suit 15-1, Wangsa Link, Jalan Wangsa Delima 10, Wangsa Maju, 55300 Kuala Lumpur and business address at No 7, Jalan Putri 2, Taman Segamat Jaya, 85000 Segamat, Johor.
[5] The 2nd Plaintiff ('P2') is a company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at Suit 15-1, Wangsa Link, Jalan Wangsa Delima 10, Wangsa Maju, 55300 Kuala Lumpur and business address at 108-1, Jalan SBC 3, Taman Sri Batu Caves, 68100 Batu Caves, Selangor.
[6] The 3rd Plaintiff ('P3') is P2's director and the former director of P1. P3 is also a shareholder in P1.
[7] The 1st Defendant ('D1') is the President and Advisor of the 2nd Defendant ('D2').
[8] D2 is a company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at No 16-2, Jalan 1/76D, Desa Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur and business address at Unit 121, Level 4, Wisma Central Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur.
[9] The 3rd Defendant ('D3') is a company incorporated in Malaysia with its registered address at No 16-2, Jalan 1/76D, Desa Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur and business address at Unit 121, Level 4, Wisma Central, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur.
[10] The 4th Defendant ('D4') had previously practiced as an advocate and solicitor under the name of Messrs Muhammad Zahir.
[11] In the Statement of Claim dated 1 April 2021, the Plaintiffs pleaded that, in a discussion between P3, D1, Sanggaran a/l Subramaniam and Dato' Seri Jalil on 31 December 2019, D1 is said to have made a representation that he would be able to obtain a contract for cleaning services business from KLCC and/ or Petronas, for P1.
[12] It was also pleaded that, in order for D1 to be able to secure the contract, D1 made representations that P1 has to comply with the following terms and conditions:
(a) P1 and D2 are to merge as a Joint Venture Covenant to obtain the contract;
(b) D2 has to take the necessary steps to obtain the contract and confirm that the contact is to be executed by the parties within four months from the letter dated 2 January 2020;
(c) P1 has paid for the registration of services with KLCC/Petronas;
(d) D1 is to obtain the contract with KLCC/Petronas based on the agreed rate and agrees to be a consultant for P1 to ensure that all services are perfectly provided to KLCC/Petronas;
(e) D1 is to ensure that KLCC/Petronas comply and cooperate with P1 for the services given under the contract;
(f) D1 is to advance a sum of RM450,000.00 per month for five months or for a time period as required by P1 from the commencement of the contract as an investment fee or a loan, whereby the amount shall be returned to D1 on the 6th month after P1 has received payment from KLCC/Petronas;
(g) P1 is to deposit a sum of RM950,000.00 to D1's solicitor ie D4 after the agreement is signed; and
(h) the sum which is deposited is to be paid to D1 after the contract with KLCC/Petronas is executed by the parties.
[13] P1 alleged that it had, through P3, paid a sum of RM500,000.00 to D4 as stakeholder, which was acknowledged by D4 vide the letter dated 17 October 2020, in the following manner:
(a) RM200,000.00 via Public Bank Banker's cheque no 186683 dated 6 January 2020;
(b) RM100,000.00 via Public Bank Banker's cheque no 186687 dated 7 January 2020;
(c) RM100,000.00 via RHB Banker's cheque no 021358 dated 7 January 2020; and
(d) RM100,000.00 via RHB Bank Banker's cheque no 0
