The court ruled that a committee should be appointed under the Mental Health Act to manage the estates of mentally disabled persons, highlighting the importance of document discovery for transparency in asset management.

[1] This is an application vide a notice of application, encl (80), filed by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant, namely, Ms Goh Sok Choo ("the 1st defendant"), for an order from the Court for the discovery and inspection of documents pertaining to the Estate of Mr Goh Swee Hon ("Mr GSH") and the Estate of Mdm Lim Beng Kim ("Mdm LBK").

[2] The plaintiff has made this application for discovery of documents pursuant to O 24 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 ("RC 2012") and for production and inspection of documents pursuant to O 24 r 11 of the RC 2012. In the event that his application is granted, the plaintiff prays for the costs of his application to be in the cause.

[3] The plaintiff's application is supported by the affidavit affirmed by his solicitor and counsel, Mr Philip Chai, on 01 July 2014 ("the plaintiff's affidavit").

[4] According to Mr Philip Chai, he was directed by the plaintiff vide a letter dated 28 June 2014 to obtain the said documents from the 1st defendant through her solicitors, Messrs RamRais & Partners. He acted upon his client's instructions and duly sent a letter dated 12 June 2014 to Messrs RamRais & Partners to request for inspection of the documents. Together with his letter he also enclosed a notice to the 1st defendant to produce the said documents pursuant to O 24 r 10 of the RC 2012.

[5] In his letter he had also put the 1st defendant on notice to allow him to inspect the said documents within seven days from the date of the letter, failing which he has his client's instructions to apply to the Court for orders for production to and inspection by the plaintiff. However, as on 1 July 2014, the 1st defendant has failed to produce the documents for the plaintiff's inspection.

[6] Hence, on 1 July 2014, the plaintiff filed his application in encl (80). The ground of the plaintiff's application is that the documents the production and inspection of which are being sought by him in encl (80), are in the possession, custody and/or power of the 1st defendant. This is because the 1st defendant is the person who is managing the assets and financial affairs of Mr GSH and Mdm LBK in Malaysia and that other than the documents which have been alleged by the 1st defendant to have been redirected to the plaintiff's address in Australia, all letters, documents and correspondences and statements of accounts in relation to the assets of Mr GSH and Mdm LBK in Malaysia are sent to their address and the 1st defendant's address at No: 12, Jalan Kovil Hilir, Sentul 55100 Kuala Lumpur.

[7] With regard to his prayer for discovery of documents, the plaintiff is seeking an order from the Court that the 1st defendant serves on the plaintiff within fourteen days from the date of the order of the Court a list of all the documents in or previously in the possession, custody and/or power of the 1st defendant relating to all the assets of the Estate of Mr GSH and the Estate of Mdm LBK in Malaysia since 2008 until the date of the order of the Court.

[8] The plaintiff is also seeking an order of the Court that within fourteen days from th