The court emphasized the necessity of disclosing financial documents in divorce proceedings to ensure a fair trial, distinguishing relevant requests from fishing expeditions.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 and Order 92 Rule 4 - Discovery application - The court allowed the respondent's application for discovery of documents from the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity and relevance of the financial documents to ascertain the petitioner's financial capacity in the context of divorce proceedings. (Paras 1, 70)

(B) Discovery - Relevance and necessity - The court highlighted that the documents sought were necessary to fairly dispose of the case, and the refusal to provide them constituted a failure to disclose relevant information. (Paras 47, 70)

(C) Fishing expedition - The court distinguished between relevant discovery requests and those deemed as a fishing expedition, finding that the respondent's requests were specific and necessary. (Paras 44, 52)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondent were involved in divorce proceedings, with disputes regarding the disclosure of financial documents crucial for determining the petitioner's financial standing and the division of matrimonial assets. (Paras 5, 11, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents were relevant to the dispute and necessary for a fair trial, thereby allowing the discovery application. (Paras 47, 70)

Issues: The main issues included the relevance of the requested documents to the divorce proceedings and whether the discovery application constituted a fishing expedition. (Paras 20, 44)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the discovery of documents was essential to ascertain the financial capabilities of the parties involved in the divorce, reinforcing the principle that all relevant documents must be disclosed for a fair trial. (Paras 70)

Result: The application for discovery was allowed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the appeal and court's decision timeline. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the application for document discovery. (Para 3 , 4)
3. background facts of the marriage and issues. (Para 5)
4. relevance of the documents in assessing financial capacity. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
5. necessity of documents for fair proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. petitioner's objections to the discovery application. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. irrelevance of requested documents to the case. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. arguments against the necessity of financial documents. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. further objections to the relevance of requested documents. (Para 39 , 41 , 42 , 43)
10. court's analysis of the discovery application. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
11. importance of financial documents in divorce proceedings. (Para 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
12. legal framework governing discovery in malaysia. (Para 66 , 67 , 68)
13. court's final decision on the discovery application. (Para 69)

Azizan Md Arshad JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of this court in allowing an application (Encl 15) by Chin Oi Khiun ("RW/respondent") with no order as to costs for the discovery of documents, pursuant to O 24 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of court 2012 (" ROC 2012") ("discovery application").

[2] The hearing was heard on 11 May 2023 and the decision was delivered on 20 June 2023 and the petitioner ("PH/appellant") was not satisfied and appealed to the court of Appeal for the decision. The parties are referred to as they were in the High court.

The Application

[3] In this application ("NOA"), the RW applies for the following order:

(1) The petitioner shall within seven days from the date of this order, provide a disclosure of documents in accordance with O 24 r 3 of the Rules of court 2012 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of court 2012 by making and delivering to the respondent a list of the documents relevant to the matters at issue in this action, which are or have been in his possession, custody or authority together with an affidavit verifying the list;

(2) The petitioner shall make and file a further affidavit in accordance with O 24 r 7 of the Rules of court 2012 within seven days from the date of this order, stating whether he has or had at any time been in possession, custody or his control, of the documents described in the sub-paragraphs below, and/or copies thereof, and if any document once existed but is now no longer in his possession, custody, or control, to state when he was separated from it and what has happened with the said documents:

(2.1) Copies of bank statements from 2016 until present date in the accounts as follows:

(a) Public Bank Current Account No: 313 7022 527;

(b) Maybank Account No: 1070 9637 8338;

(d) Maybank Account No: 1073 5808 1288;

(e) UOB Account No: 3363 6000 547;

(f) UOB Account No: 1683 023 014;

(g) Hong Leong Account No: 200 200 205 726; and

(h) CIMB Account No: 70-6350949-7,

(2.2) Copies of credit card statements from 2016 until present date in the credit card accounts as follows:

(a) UOB Account No: 4141-7000-0149-6477;

(b) UOB Account No: 5222-2200-0078-6991;

(d) Citibank Account No: 4259-5850-0081-6553;

(e) Citibank Account No: 4563-7730-0719-3652;

(f) Citibank Account No: 4563-7730-0630-6925;

(g) CIMB Account No: 4512-9500-0038-7273; and

(h) CIMB Account No: 5417-2611-0001 -0010.

(2.3) A copy of the statement from 2016 until present date in the fixed deposit account as follows:

(a) Fixed Deposits Account in Standard Chartered Account No: 730-3-5663259-2.

(2.4) A copy of the statements from 2016 until present date in the stock trading account as follows:

(a) UOB Kay Hian Securities CDS No: 078-002-043285014; and

(b) AA Anthony Securities CDS No: 078-003-043285014.

(2.5) A copy of the statement from loan account:

(a) CIMB for property No 18, Lorong Lobak 5, Tama

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 MarsdenLR 427

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANGEWE KHAY GUAN – AppellantVersusCHIN OI KHIUN – Respondent[Divorce Petition No: PA-33-114-03-2021]

The court emphasized the necessity of disclosing financial documents in divorce proceedings to ensure a fair trial, distinguishing relevant requests from fishing expeditions.

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
EWE KHAY GUAN – Appellant
Versus
CHIN OI KHIUN – Respondent
[Divorce Petition No: PA-33-114-03-2021]