Discovery applications require proof of both relevance and necessity; mere relevance is insufficient for the production of documents.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 145 - Application To Produce Document For Inspection)

John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

A) Introduction

i) Facts Of The Case

[1] This is a case where Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah ("Plaintiff") filed an action ("this Case") suing his grand daughter, Hannah Kam Zhen Yi ("D1") and Messrs Thomas Philip ("D2").

[2] While this Case was still in its interlocutory stage, D1 and D1's father, Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow ("DSAK") sent a letter to the then Chief Judge of Malaya ("the Letter to CJM" and "the Honourable CJM respectively"), expressing serious concerns and grievances concerning the conduct of the High Court Judge ("HCJ")("the Serious Concerns & Grievances") in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC822-12/2021 ("Suit 822"). In Suit 822 both D1 and DSAK were sued by Plaintiff as well.

[3] Suit 822 is a suit by Plaintiff against DSAK and D1, in which Plaintiff had similarly commenced separate committal proceedings against D1. Believing that such conduct rendered the HCJ unsuitable to continue presiding over both actions, D1 sought for a new judge be appointed in the HCJ's stead.

[4] Later, the Plaintiff in this Case received an email from the Special Officer to the Chief Justice of Malaya ("CJM"). The email was in response to the Letter of CJM. It informed the Plaintiff that the CJM refused to interfere with D1 and DSAK's complaint in the Letter to CJM.

[5] Subsequently, the Plaintiff's solicitors wrote an email to the Special Officer of CJM to request for a copy of the Letter to CJM. However, the request was denied and the Plaintiff was advised to make the request from D1 and DSAK.

[6] The Plaintiff then, vide his solicitors, wrote a letter to D1's previous solicitors requesting for a copy of the Letter to CJM. However, D1's solicitors were unable to provide the Letter to CJM as per the request.

[7] Afterwards, D1 filed a Recusal Application ("Enclosure 138") to seek for the recusal of the HCJ.

[8] The Plaintiff immediately thereafter, issued a "Notice to Produce" the Letter to CJM (Enclosure 141). In respond, D1 issued a Notice (Enclosure 142) to refuse the Plaintiff's request.

[9] In due course, the Plaintiff file this application to produce document for inspection ("this Application") seeking to inspect the Letter to CJM.

ii) Submissions By The Plaintiff

[10] The Plaintiff filed encl 145 before this Court to compel D1 to produce the Letter to CJM for inspection. The Plaintiff submitted that Plaintiff is at liberty to inspect and peruse the Letter to CJM, and to make notes of its contents, and be entitled to be supplied with the copies, at such place and time and in such manner as shall be directed by this Court .

[11] The Plaintiff argued that the test for discovery of documents for inspection can be found in O 24 r 11 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC "). This order is obvious and trite; the key factor is whether the discovery is necessary to dispose fairly the proceedings or it is crucial for saving costs purpose.

[12] The Plaintiff referred to the case of Kanan Murugesu v. Vichnsharan Kannan , where Rozi Bainon JC stated as follows in para 26 and 27:-

[26] The learned counsel for the Plaintiff cited the recent case of Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v. Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors, where the Court of Appeal held that -

"The ultimate test is whether discovery is necessary for disposing fairly of the proceedings or for saving costs. An assertion that the documents are relevant will not good enough. Equally, an assertion that the documents are necessary because they are relevant will not be enough.".

[27] As far as the ultimate goal is for smooth sailing of the full trial before this Court , the discovery for the documents as in the Lampiran 'A' are relevant and necessary. I believe that by exchanging, releasing and inspecting the said documents, the claims against the Defendant can be disposed fairly and saved the Court 's time."

[Emphasis Added]

[13] The Plaintiff further argued that a party is entitled