The court emphasized that for discovery applications, essential conditions such as document existence, relevance, and possession must be met; failure to fulfill these leads to dismissal.

A. Introduction

[1] The plaintiff filed two applications for discovery:

a. The first application, in encl 5, is an application under O 24 rr 3 and/or 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC 2012") for discovery against the defendants; and

b. The second application, in encl 7, is an application under O 24 r 7A of the ROC 2012 for discovery against a third party, Carigali-PTTEPI Operating Company Sdn Bhd ("CPOC")

(collectively, the "Discovery Applications").

[2] The Court dismissed the Discovery Applications, for the reasons set out below.

B. Background Facts

[3] The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were former employees of the plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd defendants incorporated the 1st defendant, and are its directors and shareholders.

[4] The plaintiff claimed that sometime in August 2023, it became aware that its client, CPOC, had engaged the 1st defendant to provide, inter alia, water analysis and microbial monitoring solution related services. These are services provided by the plaintiff.

[5] It is the plaintiff's contention that the 2nd to 4th defendants had unlawfully used and exploited the following confidential information of the plaintiff ("Confidential Information") for the benefit of the 1st defendant:

a. Formulas, designs, specifications, machine and tooling files, process flow, drawings, know-how, manuals, technical documents, fact sheets and/or instructions for the design, installation and integration of the devices and methods for testing, inspection and analysis;

b. Client lists, contacts, sales, marketing and promotional information;

c. Non-public financial and operational information, including but not limited to financial reports and information about earnings, expenses and investments, pricing information, order lists, vendor or supplier lists, contract information, customer data, business development materials, costs of goods, personal files, company policies, manuals, guidelines, procedures and standard operating procedures, and videos and memos;

d. Business intelligence of the plaintiff, including market research report in relation to the industry; and

e. Any document marked confidential, internal use only, proprietary, or by such other means as to indicate the intent is that the document is confidential to the plaintiff.

[6] The plaintiff claimed that without the Confidential Information, the defendants would not have been able to provide services to CPOC.

[7] The plaintiff has also been offering testing and inspection services involving an application for water analysis and microbial monitoring solution under the "Sidestream" name, brand, indicia or mark ("Sidestream Application"). The plaintiff claimed the defendants used the plaintiff's specifications, designs, drawings and know-how to develop devices and products for sample taking that are identical or similar to the devices and products in the Sidestream Application.

[8] Thus, the plaintiff filed this action against the defendants, claiming the defendants had committed a breach of confidentiality and intellectual property infringement in using the Confidential Information, and the tort of passing off in making reference to the Sidestream Application. The plaintiff also claimed the defendants conspired to injure the plaintiff and had unlawfully interfered with the plaintiff's trade.

[9] The Discovery Applications were filed to seek discovery of documents and information from the defendants and CPOC.

C. The Discovery Applications

[10] The plaintiff filed the Discovery Applications under O 24 rr 3 and/or 7, and 7A of the ROC 2012.

[11] Order 24 rr 3 and 7 of