The court held that discovery applications must demonstrate necessity to fairly dispose of a matter; mere identification of individuals involved does not suffice if statutory prohibitions apply.

[Application For Discovery Of Documents Against Third Party]

Introduction

[1] This is an application via an Amended Notice of Application dated 18 December 2023 [See Encl 94] by the plaintiff for discovery of documents against Bursa Malaysia Depository Sdn Bhd ["Bursa Depository"] and Bursa Malaysia Bhd ["Bursa Malaysia"] who are not parties to the suit before me.

[2] The application is made pursuant to O 24 r 7A(2) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of the Court 2012 ["ROC 2012"].

[3] Bursa Depository and Bursa Malaysia oppose the application.

[4] On 7 March 2025 I heard counsel. The plaintiff filed written submissions in encls 120, 140, 32 and 315. Bursa Depository filed written submissions in encls 119 and 142. Bursa Malaysia filed written submissions in encls 117, 143, 299 and 313.

[5] On 21 April 2025 I dismissed the application with costs of RM3,000.00 to Bursa Depository and RM10,000.00 to Bursa Malaysia subject to allocatur.

[6] The plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal on 20 May 2025 [See Encl 318]. These are my Grounds of Judgment.

Facts Of The Case

Dispute Between The Plaintiff And Defendants

[7] The pleaded case of the plaintiff in the Original Action, Vinvest Capital Holdings Berhad ("Vinvest" or "plaintiff") is as follows. Vinvest is the owner of 1,100,000,000.00 shares in the 1st Defendant EA Holdings, Berhad ["EAH"].

[8] EAH is a public listed company involved in activities and providing services in respect of, inter alia, investment holding, management and consultancy services.

[9] The 2nd Defendant See Jovin ["SJV" or 2nd Defendant] is an individual who represented himself as a 'share market analyst' with connection to a wide-ranging network of remisier and brokers services.

[10] Vinvest alleges that on or about 27 April 2023 SJV made a false representation to a Vinvest's director that the remisier in charge of Vinvest's Maybank CDS account had resigned from Maybank and that Vinvest would need to open a fresh CDS account. Vinvest further alleges that SJV convinced Vinvest to open the fresh CDS account ("TA CDS Account") with TA.

[11] Vinvest alleges that SJV was instructed by Vinvest to set up the TA CDS Account. Vinvest further alleges that subsequently it discovered SJV had wrongly sold Vinvest's shares in EAH without its authority.

Vinvest Secured The Proceeds From The Alleged Wrongful Disposal Of Vinvest's Shares

[12] Vinvest then managed to retrieve the proceeds from the alleged wrongful disposal of Vinvest's shares amounting to RM5,486,000.00 by getting TA to put the proceeds in Vinvest's bank account.

Vinvest Filed Writ Action

[13] On 28 July 2023, Vinvest filed this Writ action [See encls 1 and 63] before me against EAH and SJV, whereby the crux of Vinvest's claim [See Amended Statement of Claim in Encl 64] is that:

i. SJV had misrepresented to the plaintiff and/or plaintiff's directors that the 1,100,000,000 .00 ordinary shares in the 1st Defendant, which had been acquired by the plaintiff on 30-11-2021 ("Shares Belonging to plaintiff"), ought to be transferred from Maybank CDS acco