Parties must demonstrate the relevance of documents for discovery, especially when illegality is pleaded; mere assertion is insufficient.

[1] The appellant and respondents in this appeal will be referred to by the original titles in the Court below, as "plaintiff" and "defendants" respectively. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the dismissal of an application for discovery under O 24 Rules of 2012 (""). The decision was delivered by the Learned Session Court Judge on 11 January 2018. The matter has also been fixed for trial in the Sessions Court on 19 to 21 March 2018. The learned Sessions Court Judge and the Grounds of Judgment shall be referred to as "SCJ" and "GOJ" respectively. The Record of Appeal shall be referred to as "AR".

[2] The background to the suit is as follows. The plaintiff had entered into an investment scheme with one Chee Boon Thiam ("deceased") who died on 24 April 2017. The 1st defendant is the widow of the deceased. The 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant's sister. The defendants are the administrators of the estate of the deceased. The gist of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is that:-

a) The plaintiff invested a sum of USD100,000.00 into an investment scheme in April 2015 which was managed by the deceased under a sole proprietorship known as SBC Brother Consultancy ("SBC");

b) The plaintiff was promised a guaranteed return of 1.75% per month or 21% per annum;

c) The plaintiff was enjoying the guaranteed return from the investment scheme since April 2015 until April 2017;

d) The return of the investments under the scheme ceased when the deceased passed away on 24 April 2017;

e) The deceased died without leaving a valid will;

f) The plaintiff tried and attempted to withdraw her investment sum of USD107,576.14 and also the unpaid guaranteed returns of USD17,218.55 as promised under the investment scheme from the 1st defendant, but to no avail.

[3] The defendants filed in an application under Originating Summons for Letters of Administration from the Shah Alam High Court on 22 May 2017. In her affidavit in support of the application for Letters of Administration, the 1st defendant had listed a total of 41 movable assets belonging to the deceased, including various bank accounts related to the business under SBC. According to the plaintiff, the defendants obtained Letters of Administration and are the joint administrators and are having custody and full control of the investment businesses and all bank accounts of the deceased.

[4] The defendants alleged in their defence filed on 13 October 2017, that the investment scheme which the plaintiff had participated in, is illegal. The defendants have denied the claims made by the plaintiff for the return of her investment and unpaid guaranteed return.

[5] After the action was filed in the Court below, the defendants' solicitors in Singapore, namely Messrs Rajah & Tan, issued a letter dated 17 November 2017 (p 117, AR) to all the investors under the deceased's investment scheme and the letter reads as follows:

"..we invite you to send your query to us, as our clients' solicitors, together with all relevant documents in your possession (for example investment agreement entered into with SBC and/or the Deceased and correspondence). This would assist our client to discharge their obligations as joint administrators. In closing, our clients wish to assure each and every one of you that it is their intention to administer the estate in a timely fashion.".

[6] As a result of this letter, the plaintiff now seeks to discover the relevant papers and information pertaining to the assets and business of the deceased/S