Discovery of documents must be relevant to determining liability in legal proceedings; if liability is not established, cumulative documents are irrelevant and discovery is therefore unnecessary.

i) That the 1st defendant within 14 days from the date of the said Order to file and serve on the Plaintiff copies of the documents which are or have been in the possession, custody or power relating to any matter or issue in question in this suit, including the documents requested by the Plaintiff in its Notice to Produce Documents dated 8.2.2011 and marked as Exhibit NA-1 of the affidavit of the Plaintiff;

ii) That the 1st defendant serve on the Plaintiff a list of the documents which are or have been on its possession, custody or power relating to any matter or issue in question in this suit, together with an Affidavit verifying such list.

Exhibit NA-1 of the affidavit of the plaintiff in Enclosure 12 lists down the details of the documents which the Plaintiff is seeking for discovery in this application with specific reference to the relevant paragraphs of the Statement of Claim which had been filed.

After pleadings were closed in the Suit herein, a Notice to Produce Documents dated 8.2.2011 (the said Notice) was served on Petronas's solicitors on 10.2.2011, requesting for copies of the documents which the Plaintiff said are relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties arising from the pleadings which are not in the possession of Kelantan.

Until the date of the hearing of the application herein, the Plaintiff had not received any document as requested fin the said Notice from Petronas.

The Plaintiff submits that the documents which the Plaintiff is requesting are certainly relevant to determine the issue of liability owed by Petronas to the Plaintiff, apart from also to determine the quantum of arrears and future payments which was/or is payable by Petronas to the Plaintiff, as pleaded in the pleadings.

Petronas is objecting to the application for the said discovery on grounds that:

i) There should be a determination of liability first under 0 14A of the Rules of the High Court 1980 before the order for discovery is ordered;

ii) The documents requested by the Plaintiff are not relevant to the determination of liability of Petronas to Kelantan; and

iii) The requests by the Plaintiff, if complied with, will result in a waste of time and costs as the documents are extremely voluminous.

The Courts Findings:

The central issue in this case is that whether the Plaintiff has the rights over Petroleum won and discovered in locations beyond 3 nautical miles adjacent to the costs of Kelantan.

This issue revolves around the terms of the agreement between Petronas and the Plaintiff dated 22.3.1975 which is to be read with the Petroleum Development Act 1974 , the Federal Constitution and the Kelantan Constitution.

With specific reference to exhibit NA-1 of Enclosure 12:

i) (For para 32 of the Statement Of Claim)

The Plaintiff refers to para 32 of the Statement of Claim which mentioned of similar agreements and grants to the one executed by the Kelantan State Government, executed by the other 12 states Governments with the Federal Government.

Hence the Plaintiff is requesting for:

a) the 12 agreements between Petronas and each of the State Governments (excluding Kelantan) which were executed pursuant to section 2 of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 ( PDA ) and the Agreement between Petronas and the Federal Government.

b) The 12 grants executed by each of the state Governments (excluding Kelantan) pursuant to section 2 of the Schedule to the PDA , and the Grant executed by the Federal Government.

I am of the view that the Documents stated above, which are being requested to be disclosed by the Plaintiff, are not relevant in the exercise in determining liability as it relates to other states, not Kelantan.

These documents do not go towards the liability of Petronas under the claim by the Plaintiff herein. The Plaintiff's claim has to do with its rights under its Agreement with Petronas not the under the Agreements with the other 12 States.

What is of relevance as far as liability is concerned which the Court will have to construe will be the terms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document