The court upheld pre-action discovery for NGOs against the Animal Welfare Board, asserting the necessity of documents to assess potential legal action under the Animal Welfare Act 2015.

JUDGMENT

Leong Wai Hong JC:

Introduction

[1] 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

[2] Such is the famous refrain from Animal Farm, by George Orwell, published in 1945. A satirical allegorical novella, it tells the story of a group of animals who rebel against their human master, hoping to create a society where animals can be equal, free and happy. This is, of course, fiction.

[3] On Planet Earth the reality is that it is only humans who can create an ecological environment where animals can be safe, free and happy. This OS is an application for pre-action discovery by NGOs and concerned citizens and members of the public against The Director of the Animal Welfare Board ["Animal Welfare Board or the defendant"]. Its purpose is to verify compliance by the Animal Welfare Board with its functions and tasks as mandated by the Animal Welfare Act 2015 . [" " or "Act"]

[4] I heard Counsel on 21 March 2022, 4 April 2022 and 20 April 2022. On 12 May 2022 I allowed the OS but confined the pre-action discovery documents to only the activity reports from the date of establishment of the Animal Welfare Board to date.

Background Facts

[5] The ten plaintiffs here had filed an OS for pre-action discovery against the Director of the Animal Welfare Board. Their pleaded case is as follows.

[6] The plaintiffs are representatives from different animal welfare groups and/ or societies in Malaysia.

[7] The defendant is the Director of the Animal Welfare Board, a statutory body established pursuant to s 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 which is entrusted with objectives and functions stipulated in s 4(1) of the Act.

[8] On 9 September 2021, the plaintiffs had vide their solicitors e-mailed a letter dated 8 September 2021 ("The plaintiffs' 1st Letter") to the defendant requesting the following documents:

a. Copies of all minutes of meetings from the time of establishment of the Animal Welfare Board in 2016 to the current date.

b. A list of all the activities that were carried out by the Animal Welfare Board pursuant to s 4 of the Act.

[9] However, the defendant refused, failed and/or neglected to provide the requested documents without providing any valid basis to do so.

[10] On 9 September 2021, the defendant responded to the plaintiffs' 1st letter via e-mail ("The defendant's 1st E-mail") that the documentation requested by the plaintiffs were strictly confidential and access was restricted to members of the Board, attendees of the said meetings and/or officer(s) in the Veterinary Services Department or the Ministry of Agriculture.

[11] In addition, the defendant via the defendant's 1st Email provided brief information on the activities that have supposedly been carried out since the establishment of the Animal Welfare Board.

[12] In response to the defendant's 1st Email, the plaintiffs' solicitors issued a letter dated 23 September 2021 ("The plaintiffs' 2nd Letter") to the defendant, asserting and/or reiterating that the plaintiffs still wish to obtain the relevant documentation and/or details in relation to the activities that were carried out by the Animal Welfare Board since its establishment in 2016.

[13] However, the defendant responded on 28 September 2021 via e-mail ("The defendant's 2nd E-mail") insisting that the Animal Welfare Board had carried out their roles and responsibilities as stipulated under the Act without proffering further evidence thereof.

[14] The plaintiffs' solicitors then responded to the defendant's 2nd E-mail with a letter dated 6 October 2021 ("The plaintiffs' 3rd Letter") once again requesting for the documentation related to the activities that have supposedly been carried out by the defendant. Nevertheless, the defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to respond to the plaintiffs' 3rd Letter as to date.

[15] Due to the failure/neglect and or refusal of the defendant to respond to the plaintiffs' 3rd Letter, the plaintiffs' solicitors had issued yet another letter dated 8 October 2021 ("The pl