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 o