Discovery applications must show relevancy and specificity; lack of these leads to dismissal.

[1] These are similar discovery applications by the defendants in the above named four suits against the common plaintiff/respondent pursuant to O 24 r 12 and/or O 92 r 4, Rules of 2012 (" ROC ").

[2] An order for discovery in any cause or matter is governed by O 24 r 3 ROC which states that:

"Order for discovery (O 24, r 3)

3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rr 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party.

(4) The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under para (1) are as follows:

(a) the documents on which the party relies or will rely; and

(b) the documents which could:

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or

(iii) support another party's case."

O 24 r 12 under which this application is made provides that:

"Order for production to Court (O 24, r 12)

12. (1) At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the Court may, subject to r 13(1), order any party to produce to the Court any document in his possession, custody or power relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter that falls within one of the following descriptions:

(a) documents on which the party relies or will rely;

(b) documents which could:

(i) adversely affect a party's case; or

(ii) support a party's case; and

(c) documents which may lead to a series of inquiry resulting in the obtaining of information which may:

(i) adversely affect a party's case; or

(ii) support a party's case.

(2) The Court may deal with the documents when produced in pursuance of an order made under para (1) in such manner as it thinks fit."

[3] A leading and oft-cited authority on pre-trial discovery of documents is Yekambaran Marimuthu v. Malayawata Steel Berhad , 1994 MarsdenLR 1456 where Edgar Joseph Jr J (as he then was) held:

"The essential elements for an order for discovery are threefold; namely, first there must be a 'document', secondly, the document must be 'relevant' and thirdly, the document must be or have been in the 'possession, custody or power' of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought."

[4] For an order of discovery to be made, relevancy of the documents concerned to the claim or defence is a vital consideration. In the Singapore case of Manilal & Sons Pte Ltd v. Bhupendra Kumar J Shan, 1981 MarsdenLR 479 , Chao Hick Tin J remarked:

"Under the general order of Court for discovery, a party is obliged to make discovery of all documents relevant to the matters in question in the action."

[5] Briefly, the defendants sought discovery of the following documents in the possession, custody and power of the plaintiff:

(1) Proxy form used in the first AGM on 8 April 2008 and list of employees of Melawangi Sdn Bhd as of 8 April 2008 (para 9(a) statement of claim and paras 6.1-6.5 statement of defence)

(2) Document for appointment and payment of Archer Corporate Services Sdn Bhd by Melawangi Sdn Bhd to conduct the AGM (para 9(a) SOC and para 6.3 amended statement of defence)

(3) Documents relating to any contracts for the lease of the outer wall facade of Amcorp Serviced Suites for the year of 2000-2014 (para 7.8 amended statement of defence)

Background Of Case/Chronology

[6] The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for defamation based