Discovery orders must have documents that are relevant and necessary, and not be broad 'fishing expeditions'.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (D1 in the Sessions Court) against thedecision of the Sessions Court on 26 July 2024 in allowing the Respondent's(D2 in the Sessions Court) application pursuant to O 24 for discovery ofdocuments (in the form of bank statements).

[2] To all intents and purposes, this discovery application relates to twodistinct documents. The first is the Appellant's bank statement forNovember, 2022 and the second are the Appellant's bank statements afterNovember, 2022.

The Central Issue

[3] The key issue for consideration by this Court is whether the learnedSessions Court Judge had made any appealable error in exercising herdiscretion in allowing the Respondent's application for discovery.

The Background Facts

[4] The background facts leading to the discovery application in the SessionsCourt are outlined in the Appellant's Written Submissions as follows:

3. On 7 November 2023, the Plaintiff brought a claim in case No: BB-B52NCC-99-11/2023 against the Appellant and the Respondent as partners ofOMG Luxury Trading ("OMG Company"). The Plaintiff alleged, among others,that on or around November 2022 OMG Luxury Trading company through theRespondent had contacted the Plaintiff for trading of branded watches("Luxury Watch Trading") where the Plaintiff had paid a sum of RM73,000.00to the account of OMG Luxury trading company whereby according to thePlaintiff, the sale price of RM320,000.00 is to be paid back to thePlaintiff.

4. In the defence of the Appellant filed on 4 January 2024, the Appellantpleads, among other things, that he is not involved in the above said tradebetween the Plaintiff and the Respondents and if there is any agreement(which is denied) it is between the Plaintiff and the Respondent consideringthat it is the Respondent who contacted the Plaintiff for the trade of thewatches. In addition, the Appellant also pleaded that it is an illegal moneylending agreement.

5. In the Respondent's defence filed on 19 February 2024, the Respondent has among other things put the blame on the Appellant.

6.The Respondent then filed a Notice of Application [Tab 13 Record of Appeal] dated 28 May 2024 with an affidavit in support affirmed on 27 May 2024requesting for the discovery of the documents as mentioned in para 1above from the Appellant.

The Parties' Contentions

[5] The contentions advanced by the parties have been outlined by the learnedSessions Court Judge in her grounds of judgment. For ease of reference, theRespondent's submissions at the Court below were summed up by the learnedSessions Court Judge as follows:

[2] Alasan permohonan Plaintif adalah dinyatakan dalam affidavit sokonganyang mana antara lain menyatakan bahawa:

1) Melalui penafian Defendan Pertama dalam Jawapan Plaintif PembelaanDefendan Pertama kepada Pembelaan Defendan Kedua bertarikh 9 May 2024, adalahjelas bahawa Defendan Pertama menafikan bahawa wang yang dimasukkan ke dalamakaun OMG Luxury Trading (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai OMG), tidakdipindahkan ke akaun peribadi milik Defendan Pertama dan ini bertentangandengan penyataan Defendan Kedua yang menegaskan wang terbabit sememangnyadipindahkan ke akaun milik Defendan Pertama. Sesalinan Penyata Akaun OMG bagi bulan November iaitu OCBC No:786-127082-1 menunjukkan bahawa wang telah dipindahkan ke akaun Defendan Pertamapada 9 November 2022 dan 10 November 2022 selepas Plaintif memasukkan wang ke akaun OCBC ini.

2) Penyata Akuan Peribadi Defendan Pertama di Ambank Akaun No:8810445