Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4872
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MARITIME NETWORK SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
RHB BANK BERHAD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-114-03/2025]
The necessity of pre-action discovery requires that the applicant demonstrate a viable claim, and the sought documents must be essential for that determination to avoid fishing expeditions.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 r 7A - Pre-action discovery - Application for pre-action discovery dismissed, finding it unnecessary as the plaintiff has a defined cause of action without needing the sought documents - Plaintiff's allegations against defendant found to be unfounded and nonsensical. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 42)
(B) Pre-action discovery principle - Burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show necessity for the sought documents, failure to do so leads to dismissal of application for discovery. (Paras 26, 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a shipping agent, sought pre-action discovery against its bank, alleging breach of duty regarding unverified funds deposited by non-contracting parties into its account. The plaintiff rejected the bank's request for documentation for compliance with anti-money laundering regulations. (Paras 10-15)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents were not necessary for the plaintiff to establish its claims, resulting in a dismissal of the application for pre-action discovery. (Paras 33-35)
Issues: Whether the applicant could establish necessity for pre-action discovery to support its claims against the bank. (Para 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity standard for pre-action discovery, stating the applicant must demonstrate that the information is needed to ascertain if a viable claim exists, not simply to bolster their case or engage in fishing expeditions. (Paras 28, 30, 38)
Result: Application for pre-action discovery dismissed with costs to the defendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pre-action discovery application details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's background and banking relationship. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. plaintiff's assertions against rhb. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. rhb's defense and due diligence requirements. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. plaintiff's necessity claims for documents. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. rules governing pre-action discovery. (Para 26 , 32) |
| 7. court's reasoning on necessity. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
Introduction
[1] This case before me is a classic example of the adage "curiosity killed the cat" as the plaintiff, Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, chose to proceed to file this OS [Encl 1] despite clear evidence from the defendant, RHB Bank Berhad ("RHB"), that such a course of action would be ill-advised.
[2] The OS is an application for pre-action discovery by the plaintiff against RHB pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012.
[3] The documents sought by the plaintiff concern steps taken by Bank Negara and RHB to curb money laundering under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 .
[4] The documents sought are as follows:
(a) Minimum Due Diligence Guide for Foreign Exchange Rules - Financial Institution ("MDD");
(b) The compliance framework policy(ies) of RHB pertaining to foreign exchange transactions; and
(c) The internal policy of RHB on the due diligence required for foreign exchange transactions. ("Documents")
[5] I heard counsel on 6 June 2025 and on 2 July 2025 dismissed the OS with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur. The plaintiff has appealed to the Court of Appeal on 2 July 2025. These are my Grounds of Decision.
[6] To my mind, the OS is frivolous as the plaintiff had admitted via their solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025 that:
i. Sums remitted from overseas into their Multi Currency Account are from parties who are not their contracting parties;
ii. The plaintiff had rejected RHB's request for documents from them for verification of these overseas funds as required by Bank Negara for money laundering checks.
iii. The plaintiff insisted RHB must not refund these funds to the sender banks despite having exceeded the standard turnaround time for documents verification.
[See plaintiff's solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025, exhibited in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit Encl 2 at p 36]
[7] In the same letter, the plaintiff pushed the blame to RHB and insisted that RHB showed them that RHB had complied with the verification guidelines set by Bank Negara. [See plaintiff's solicitor's letter to RHB dated 18 February 2025 at paras 5 to 7 in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit encl 2 at p 36]
[8] I shall elaborate more in my Grounds below.
[9] At the outset, I should point out that plaintiff's counsel has in his written submission in encl 12 wrongly reproduced the prayers. He had added the following words "for the years 2023, 2024 and/or 2025" in his reproduction of prayers [b] and [c] when these words do not appear in his prayers 1[b] and [c] set out in encl 1 OS. Counsel should be more careful in future as it can inadvertently mislead the Court.
Background Facts
Relationship Between The Plaintiff And RHB
[10] The plaintiff is a Malaysian company carrying on a business as a shipping agent.
[11] The plaintiff banks with RHB, more specifically the Port Kelang branch of RHB.
[12] The plaintiff has, inter alia, two accounts with RHB:
i) RHB Account No.: 61207700002040, which is a multi-currency account ("Multi Currency Account"); and
ii) RHB Account No.: 21207700090260, which is a current account ("Current Account").
[13] The plaintiff's Multi Currency Account is used for ship owners and charterers who intend to remit payments to the plaintiff for their services, in USD and/or any other foreign currency aside from MYR.
Disputes Between The Parties
Factual Contentions Of The Plaintiff
[14] The plaintiff alleges as follows. That early in 2025, t
