Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA MUAR
SIM CHENG HO – Appellant
Versus
LEE YEN PIN & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. misrepresentation in legal representation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendants' denial of misrepresentation (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. application for discovery details (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. preliminary observations on application (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. appellant's grounds for discovery application (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. respondents' opposition to discovery (Para 21) |
| 7. sessions court's decision overview (Para 22) |
| 8. applicable law on discovery (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. court's discretion on necessity of discovery (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. determining necessity for discovery (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. relevance of documents to the case (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 12. final judgment and order (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
Bacground Facts
[1] The Appellant is the Plaintiff whereas Respondents are the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants in the Court below. The claim against the 1st and 2nd Defendants was discontinued.
[2] The Appellant is suing the 1st Respondent for misrepresenting to him at all material times that she is a qualified lawyer practising with the 3rd Respondent's firm in the course of attending to the Appellant's joint divorce peti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
