SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2015 MarsdenLR 2074

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA – Appellant
Versus
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS CAPITAL SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:CK Yeoh,John Wong ,Respondent Advocate: Leong Wai Hong,David Tan

Lee Swee Seng J:

[1] Pre-trial discovery is common between parties to an action that has already begun. It is less usual if the discovery is before the commencement of proceedings. It is even rarer still if the discovery is pre-action against non-parties to an intended action. The case of Norwich Pharmacal Co v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, was the watershed setting out the circumstances under which a pre-action discovery application may be made confining itself mainly to situations where it would be nigh impossible to commence an action against unknown defendants; unknown to the plaintiff but known to the party against whom a pre-action discovery is sought. As was observed by the Court of Appeal in Nishimatsu Construction Co Ltd v. Kecom Sdn Bhd; at p 103 [2009] 2 MLJ 404; [2008] 6 CLJ 149:

"Save in the circumstances set out in the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory discovery that is to say discovery in anticipation of the action being filed."

[2] The circumstances under which such an order may be made have since expanded to cover a variety

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top