Back
2024 MarsdenLR 996
MAGISTRATE COURT SUNGAI SIPUT
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PRITUM KAUR BACHAN SINGH – Respondent
[Civil Case No: AF-A72NCvC-8-09/2023]
Discovery applications must demonstrate relevance and necessity; failing to do so results in dismissal of the application.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 r 7 and r 7A - Application for discovery of documents - The court emphasized the necessity of relevance and possession for discovery orders, dismissing the defendant's application as a fishing expedition lacking sufficient justification. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Discovery - The court reiterated that discovery applications must demonstrate necessity for fair disposal or cost-saving; failure to do so results in dismissal. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims RM60,904.60 in back billing charges due to meter tampering, while the defendant seeks discovery of documents regarding items removed during a police raid on April 11, 2023.
Findings of Court:
The defendant's application for discovery was dismissed due to lack of relevance and necessity, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issues included whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary for fair disposal of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that discovery orders must be just, relevant, and necessary, rejecting the defendant's broad request as oppressive and lacking proper basis.
Result: Application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
The ratio decidendi of the case is that discovery orders must be just, relevant, and necessary for the fair disposal of the case or for cost-saving purposes. The court emphasized that the application for discovery must demonstrate the relevance and necessity of the documents sought. Broad or vague requests, especially those that amount to fishing expeditions or are based on mere suspicion, are likely to be dismissed. The court also highlighted that discovery should not be oppressive or cause prejudice to other parties or non-parties, and that the discretion to order discovery is exercised based on the specific circumstances of each case, ensuring that the documents are directly relevant to the issues at hand and truly necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute.
JUDGMENT
Background Facts
[1] The Plaintiff, Tenaga Nasional Berhad claims against the Defendant for the sum of RM60,904.60 being back billing charges due to meter tampering at the Defendant's premises.
[2] In the midst of trial, the Defendant filed an application for discovery pursuant to O 24 r 7 and r 7A, and/or O 92 r 4 of Rules of 2012 ( ROC 2012), to seek the following, and I quote in the original Malay language:
1. Bahawa Plaintif, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) dalam masa 07 hari daripada tarikh perintah ini menyerahkan kepada peguamcara Defendan senarai kesemua barang serta gambar-gambar kesemua barang yang dirampas dan/atau diangkut selepas serbuan oleh Tenaga Nasional dan Polis Diraja Malaysia di premis No 192 (atas) Persiaran Komersial 10, Jalan Lintang, Water Front, 31000 Sungai Siput (U), Perak, pada 11 April 2023.
2. Bahawa Polis Diraja Malaysia dalam masa 07 hari daripada tarikh Perintah ini menyerahkan kepada peguamcara Defendan senarai kesemua barang serta gambar-gambar kesemua barang yang dirampas dan/atau diangkut selepas serbuan oleh Tenaga Nasional dan Polis Diraja Malaysia di premis No 192 (atas) Persiaran Komersial 10, Jalan Lintang, Water Front, 31000 Sungai Siput (U), Perak pada 11 April 2023.
The Applicable Law
[3] Order 24 r 7, and O 24 r 7A of ROC 2012 provides as follows:
7. Order for discovery of particular documents (O 24 r 7)
(1) Subject to r 8, the Court may at any time, on the application of any party to a cause or matter, make an order requiring any other party to make an affidavit stating whether any document specified or described in the application or any class of document so specified or describes is, or has at any time been, in his possession, custody or power, and if not then in his possession, custody or power when he parted with it and what has become of it.
(2) An order may be made against a party under this rule not withstanding that he may already have made or been required to make list of documents or affidavit under r 3.
(3) An application for an order under this rule shall be supported by an affidavit stating the belief of the deponent that the party from whom discovery is sought under this rule has, or at some time had, in his possession, custody or power the document, or class of document, specified or described in the application, and that it falls within one on the following descriptions:
(a) a document on which the party relies or will rely;
(b) a document which could:
(i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or
(iii) support another party's case; and
(c) a document which may lead the party seeking discovery of is to a series of inquiry resulting in his obtaining information which may:
(i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii) adversely affect another party's case; or
(iii) support another party's case.
(4) An order under this rule shall not be made in any cause or matter in respect of any party before an order under r 3 has first been obtained in respect of that party, unless, in the opinion of the Court , the order is necessary or desirable.
7A. Discovery against other person (O 24 r 7A)
(1) An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons and the person against whom the order is sought shall be made defendant to the originating summons.
(2) An application after the commencement of proceedings for an order for the discovery of documents by a person who is not a party to the proceedings shall be made by a notice of application, which shall be served on that person personally and on every party to the proceedings.
(3) An originating summons under paragraph (1) or a notice of application under paragraph (2) shall be supported by an affidavit which shall:
(a) in the case of an originating summons under paragraph (1), state the grounds for the application, the material facts pertaining to the intended proceedings and whether the person against whom the order
