Discovery in civil cases must show necessity and relevance; official secrets are protected from disclosure unless declassified. Court limited disclosure to relevant valuation report only.

(Enclosure 14)

Introduction

[1] This is the Plaintiff's Application for Discovery (encl 14) under O 24 r 3 and/or r 7 and/or O 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).

[2] This Court allows encl 14 in part, by allowing only the valuation report dated 19 May 2020 pertaining to a land held under HSD 3457, PT 457, Mukim Klang, Daerah Klang, Negeri Selangor (Land) but not Minutes of the Cabinet meeting. The reasons are as deliberated.

Brief Facts

[3] There was a letter of offer dated 31 January 2012 issued by D1 to the Plaintiff on these conditions:

(a) The sale of the Land is subject to the final decision of the Cabinet Meeting and Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (MMKN); and

(b) Earnest money in the amount of RM2,501,215.20 (earnest money) will be refunded without payment for claim of loss and expenses and any other claims, if the Cabinet Meeting/MKN disagree on the proposal of sale of the Land.

[4] Pursuant to that, the Plaintiff paid the earnest money to D1 on 27 December 2011. The Plaintiff then, appointed Messrs Zul Rafique & Partners to prepare the draft sale and purchase agreement.

[5] However, D1 cancelled the sale of the Land in a letter dated 17 February 2014.

[6] Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants (Kuala Lumpur Court Civil Suit No: WA-21NCvC-13-02/2017) and judgment was entered against the Defendants on 28 December 2018 (Judgment) that contains:

(a) a declaration that the letter dated 17 February 2014 issued by D1 informing that D1 had withdrawn the offer to sell the Land to the Plaintiff as void and could not be relied upon.

(b) a declaration that the letter dated 31 January 2012 issued by D1 to the Plaintiff for the purpose of the sale of the Land as valid and in force.

(c) a declaration that the parties are still bound by the terms contained in the letter of offer dated 31 January 2012 and the parties have to comply with the terms as agreed therein.

[7] After the Judgment, the Defendants issued a letter dated 28 April 2021 to the Plaintiff, stating:

(a) The Cabinet Meeting agreed that the Land to be sold to the Plaintiff subject to a new purchase price which was assessed by Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) in the sum of RM296,473,000.00;

(b) Plaintiff is requested to settle the differential of the earnest money in the sum of RM3,428,244.80 not later than 18 May 2021; and

(c) If D1 does not receive the payment of the difference of the earnest money on the date stipulated, the offer will automatically be cancelled.

[8] The Plaintiff was not agreeable to D1's new proposal.

[9] D1 then issued a letter dated 17 November 2021 to the Plaintiff stating that since D1 did not receive the differential earnest money within the stipulated time, the offer to sell the Land was automatically cancelled.

[10] Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is premised on:

(i) The agreement to sell the Land to the Plaintiff at the purchase price of RM125,060,760.00 (Agreement); and

(ii) The Judgment dated 28 December 2018, wherein the High Court upheld the validity of the Agreement and found the Agreement to be binding upon the parties.

[11] The Plaintiff alleges that instead of complying with the Judgment, the Defendants then terminated the Agreement by increasing the purchase price of the Land from RM125,060,760.00 to RM296,473,000.00.

[12] Thus, the Plaintiff filed this claim and