SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 757

HIGH COURT MALAYA PULAU PINANG
ALL KURMA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TEO HENG TATT & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCC-30-09/2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Elizabeth Lau,Evelyn Ng ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Fei Wen

The court emphasized that documents previously relied upon must be disclosed if they are relevant and necessary for the defense, regardless of claims of confidentiality.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 - Discovery of documents - Plaintiff sought to withhold documents previously relied upon for expert reports, claiming they were no longer necessary - Court held documents discoverable as they were relevant to the case and necessary for the defendant's defense - Plaintiff's claims of confidentiality and trade secrets found insufficient to deny discovery. (Paras 6, 10, 24, 38, 44)

(B) Discovery - Principle of relevance and necessity - Documents must be relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for the party seeking discovery to prove its case or damage the opposing party's case - Court emphasized fairness in allowing access to documents that could support the defense. (Paras 11, 30, 44)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging diversion of business and seeking discovery of documents to support its claims. Defendants sought discovery of documents previously relied upon by the plaintiff's expert. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
Court found that the documents were relevant and necessary for the defendant’s forensic expert to produce an opinion on the plaintiff's claims, thus granting the discovery request. (Paras 44-45)

Issues: Whether the documents sought were discoverable given the plaintiff's claim of no longer relying on them and the assertion of confidentiality. (Paras 5, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that documents relied upon by a party must be disclosed if they are relevant to the case, emphasizing that a party cannot withhold documents based on a changed position regarding reliance. (Paras 24, 38)

Result: Discovery granted, with specific orders for the plaintiff to provide documents to the defendant.

JUDGMENT

(Production Of Documents)

Kenneth St James JC:

Prelusion

[1] The Plaintiff (P) sues the Defendants for causes of action that include breach of duties (including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence), dishonest assistance, and conspiracy to injure.

[2] The 1st Defendant (Teo) was a shareholder and director of P. P asserts that Teo incorporated the 7th Defendant (D7) and the 8th Defendant (Taha Food) to divert away business from P.

[3] P had earlier obtained an Anton Piller Order (APO) and a Mareva injunction (Mareva) against Teo, D7, and Taha Food. As a result, P seized D7's and Taha Food's documents. And D7's and Taha Food's assets were each frozen to the amount of approximately RM1.1 million.

[4] D7 now applies under O 24 of the Rules Of 2012 ( ROC ) for the discovery and production of certain classes of documents belonging to P. D7 also applies for the production of these documents under O 92 r 4 of the , which provides for the inherent powers of the Court to prevent injustice and an abuse of the process of the Court.

[5] Should the Order for the discovery and production of these documents be granted?

The Law On Order 24

[6] Under O 24 of the ROC , the Court can order any party to give discovery of documents that are in its possession, custody, or power — to another party. The discoverable documents include documents which are, in the expressions used in O 24 rr 3(4)(a) and (b) and 7(3)(a) and (b):

(1) "documents on which the party relies on or will rely on";

(2) "documents which could:

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case".

[7] Further, the discoverable documents also include, in the expressions used in O 24 r 7(3)(c) — "documents which may lead the party seeking discovery... to a series of inquiry resulting in that party "obtaining information which may":

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case".

[8] The pertinent portions of O 24 are set out below for reference [With My Emphases In Bold]:

Order for discovery (O 24, r 3)

3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rr 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party.

(4) The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under paragraph (1) are as follows:

(a) the documents on which the party relies or will rely; and

(b) the documents which could:

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case.

Order for discovery of particular documents (O 24, r 7)

7. (3) An application for an order under this rule shall be supported by an affidavit stating the belief of the deponent that the party from whom discovery is sought under this rule has, or at some time had, in his possession, custody or power the document, or class of document, specified or described in the application, and that it falls within one of the following descriptions:

(a) a document on which the party relies or will rely;

(b) a document which could:

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case; and

(c) a document which may lead the party seeking discovery of it to a series of inquiry resulting in his obtaining information which may:

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case.

[9] The meanings of the expressions used in O 24 are clear. And the width of the documents and classes of documents that are discoverable are large and wide. Not only are documents that a


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top