Discovery orders require proven relevance and necessity, distinguishing between essential needs and fishing expeditions.

[1] Enclosure 14 is an application by the defendant for discovery of documents pursuant to O 24 r 3 of the Rules of (ROC).

Discovery and inspection of documents.

1. ....

3. Order for discovery (O 24 r 3)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rr 4 and 8, the Court 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.

(2) (There is no paragraph (2))

(3) (There is no paragraph (3))

(4) The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under paragraph (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.

After concluding that the documents sought were relevant and within the powers of the plaintiff-respondent to provide the documents, I allowed the application. Below are my reasons.

[2] The applicant/defendant, AIA General Bhd, is an insurance company. It had sold a personal accident insurance policy to a Karuppiah a/l Gunisegeren ('deceased').

[3] The respondent/plaintiff, Shashikala a/p Segara, is the deceased's widow who is also the nominee stated in the insurance policy.

[4] Following the deceased's demise in a motor vehicle accident on 17 June 2018, the plaintiff submitted a death claim. This claim was rejected by the applicant/defendant. The applicant alleged that the deceased had committed several breaches which vitiated the policy. This led the plaintiff to institute Civil Suit KB-22NCVC-29-11/2021 at the Sungai Petani High Court for payment of the coverage promised under the policy.

[5] The following are undisputed facts. The deceased had purchased an insurance policy ('the policy') from the applicant/defendant through one of its agents. This policy No PA7885721 dated 21 November 2017 was issued on 15 January 2018 and provided a RM 1 million coverage. It is also not disputed that the deceased had passed away as a result of "the chest injury due to vehicular crash" and that, if there had been no challenge on the validity of the policy, the respondent would be entitled to the coverage sum as she had been duly appointed as the nominee in the policy.

[6] This application is filed pursuant to O 24 rr 7, 8, 10 and/or 11 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). Yekambaran Marimuthu v. Melayawata Steel Berhad , 1994 MarsdenLR 1456 is instructive in an application of this nature. In that case, the plaintiff had sought the production of a medical report which his employer/ defendant relied on to medically board him out. In allowing the application, Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ held (at p 385):

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 person against whom the order for discovery is sought.

The applicant carries the burden of establishing these 3 elements. The existence of these elements does not ipso facto mean that the application will be allowed. The Court may abstain from allowing the application if the Court finds the application a fishing expedition and/or the ord