Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GEL – Appellant
Versus
PEL & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. issues regarding the second discovery application. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. delay as a significant issue in legal proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. relevance and necessity of documents sought in discovery. (Para 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. specificity required in discovery requests. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. misinterpretation of court's decisions regarding discovery obligations. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. abuse of process and procedural efficiency. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
Introduction
[1] This is the Respondent-Husband's second discovery application ("the Second Discovery Application") in encl 181 pursuant to O 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("Rules of Court"), for discovery of specific documents against the Petitioner-Wife.
[2] In the interest of the privacy of the parties concerned and the sensitivity of the issues, the Petitioner, Respondent and Co-Respondent have been anonymised respectively as GEL, PEL, and MEL.
The Factual Background
[3] The Petitioner and Respondent (collectively, "the Parties"), both a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
