Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1873
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
STRONGHOLD CYCLES SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
GOH KIAN SIN & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCvC-75-02/2023]
A discovery order must be necessary for the fair disposal of the case; irrelevance and lack of necessity resulted in dismissal of the application.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 Rules 8 and 13 - Discovery application dismissed - Plaintiffs sought discovery of documents to prove existence of an alleged arrangement and breach of fiduciary duties - Court found requested documents irrelevant and unnecessary as they did not address core issues - Plaintiffs' exclusion from distributorship process not disputed. (Paras 9-12)
(B) The discovery order must be necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs - Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate necessity for the requested documents. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, Stronghold Cycles and its directors, filed for discovery against former minor director and associated companies regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to motorcycle distributorships. Defendants denied the arrangement but not importation of motorcycles.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the requested documents were irrelevant and unnecessary, dismissing the application for discovery with costs.
Issues: The main issues were the necessity of the requested documents for proving alleged arrangement and breach, and whether the discovery was essential for the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for a successful discovery application as the documents sought were neither necessary nor relevant for proving the existence of the arrangement.
Result: Application for discovery dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments surrounding discovery application. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of the dispute and claims. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on relevance and necessity for documents. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal and costs order. (Para 13) |
[1] The Plaintiffs vide encl 199 had applied for discovery of 35 categories of documents from the 1st to 3rd and 6th Defendants ("Requested Documents"). The application was dismissed with costs as this Court found that the Requested Documents to be irrelevant and/or unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings. The Plaintiffs have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
[2] As a brief introduction to the parties, the Plaintiffs are Stronghold Cycles Sdn Bhd ("Stronghold Cycles") and its board of controlling directors. The Plaintiffs have settled and discontinued the action against the 4th and 5th Defendants, and the remaining Defendants are the 1st Defendant ("Goh") and 2nd Defendant ("Juan"), who are respectively the former and current minority Director of Stronghold Cycles, and the 3rd and 6th Defendants, which are companies allegedly controlled by Goh.
[3] In the action now set down for trial on 6 to 9 July 2026, the Plaintiffs have pleaded that Stronghold Cycles was set up according to an arrangement between them and Goh as promoters to carry on the business of:
a) importing premium motorcycles from overseas and distributing them through dealerships; and
b) setting up a showroom and automotive lifestyle hub branded as "The Gasket Alley" for the sale of premium motorcycles.
in which Didi Resources would import the motorcycles and hold distributorships or franchises secured for or on behalf of Stronghold Cycles and grant exclusive dealerships to Stronghold Cycles ("Arrangement").
[4] As far as the discovery application is concerned, the Plaintiffs are claiming that Goh and Juan have breached their fiduciary duties to Stronghold Cycles by diverting the distributorships of various brands of motorcycles (Piaggio, Vespa, Harley Davidson, Royal Enfield and Triumph) to the 3rd Defendant ("Didi Resources") and the 6th Defendant ("Goh Brothers") and that this is part of a conspiracy between them to injure Stronghold Cycles.
[5] The remedies sought by the Plaintiffs in the claim include a declaration that Didi Resources and/or Goh Brothers and/or Goh hold import licences and permits for Zero Engineering, Moto Guzzi, Aprilia, Vespa, Piaggio and Harley Davidson on behalf of Stronghold Cycles and an account of profits for the importation and sale of these motorcycle brands.
[6] The Defendants deny the existence of the Arrangement as pleaded but not the fact that Didi Resources and companies related to Goh secured distributorship rights and imported various brands of motorcycles into Malaysia for sale through dealerships. Essentially, the Defendants pleaded that Stronghold Cycles and the majority directors were aware of but played no part in securing the distributorships nor did they seek any part of that enterprise at the material time.
[7] In the context as summarized above, the Plaintiffs sought discovery of the Requested Documents. It is perhaps instructive to set them out in full here:
"Motosikal Moto Guzzi
1. Segala komunikasi bertulis, surat-menyurat (termasuk e-mel dan mesej WhatsApp) dan/atau dokumentasi antara Defendan Pertama ("KS Goh"), Defendan Ke-2 ("Juan") dan/atau wakil Defendan Ke-3 ("Didi Resources") dengan Moto Guzzi dan/atau kumpulan Piaggio antara 2015 dan November 2016 berhubung dengan mendapatkan pelantikan Didi Resources sebagai pengedar eksklusif motosikal Moto Guzzi Malaysia
2. Bagi tempoh antara 2015 dan 2017, dokumentasi yang menyatakan keperluan Moto Guzzi yang perlu dipenuhi oleh pengedar di Malaysia untuk menjadi pengedar serta segala dokumentasi yang dikemukakan untuk menyokong permohonan pengedar tersebut (termasuk, tetapi tidak terhad kepada, borang permohonan, dokumen yang dikemukakan bagi menyokong borang permohonan dan surat-men
