JUDGMENT

Shamsulbahri Haji Ibrahim J:

[Enclosure 48]

Background

[1] This is the 1st and 2nd Defendants' application pursuant to O 24 rr 3, 5, 7A, 8A, 11 and 12 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") for an order of discovery of the documents listed in the application against a company known as Northport (Malaysia) Berhad (Northport) which is not a party in this suit.

[2] As a background of facts, the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the lands held under PN110815 Lot 41032, PN110816 Lot 41033, PN110817 Lot 41034 dan PN110818 Lot 41035 Mukim Bandar Sultan Sulaiman, Daerah Klang ("Lands") which cover an area of 164 acres.

[3] On 8 June 1988, vide a 30-year Lease Agreement ("Lease Agreement"), the Plaintiff leased the Lands to the 1st Defendant which came to an end on 8 June 2018. The Lease Agreement contained an option to renew clause.

[4] On 6 October 2017, the 1st Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff to exercise the option to renew the Lease Agreement. However, the 1st Defendant's request to renew the lease was rejected by the Plaintiff vide its letters dated 26 October 2017 and 1 March 2018 respectively.

[5] Upon the Plaintiff elected not to renew the Lease Agreement, the 1st Defendant initiated a civil suit against the Plaintiff claiming among others, declarations, specific performance, injunction as well as damages via Civil Suit No: BA-21NCvC-43-06/2018 ("Suit 43") at the Shah Alam High Court .

[6] At the early stage of the Suit 43, the High Court allowed the 1st Defendant's application for an interim injunction i.e to restrain the Plaintiff from evicting the 1st Defendant from the Lands pending the disposal of the Suit 43.

[7] Subsequently, on 8 July 2019 the High Court dismissed the 1st Defendant's claim and reliefs in the Suit 43 and ordered the 1st Defendant to surrender the vacant possession of the Lands to the Plaintiff.

[8] Being dissatisfied with the decision by the High Court , the 1st Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal ("Appeal") and subsequently applied for an Erinford Injunction which was granted by the Court of Appeal on 28 August 2019.

[9] On 16 August 2022 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court in the Suit 43.

[10] Dissatisfied, the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant (the 1st Defendant's majority shareholder) further filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Federal Court on 15 September 2022 together with the stay application and the Erinford Injunction against the Plaintiff. However, on 15 May 2023 the Federal Court unanimously dismissed all the Motions.

[11] On or about May 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that the 3rd Defendant (in which the 4th and 5th Defendants are the shareholders) had lodged four private caveats on the Lands between 7 August 2018 and 7 August 2019 ("Private Caveats"). The 4th and 5th Defendants are also the directors of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

[12] The Plaintiff avers that although the vacant possession of the Lands was surrendered to the Plaintiff on 26 July 2019, the existence of the Private Caveats had prevented the Plaintiff from enjoying its rights over the Lands including to develop the Lands.

[13] On 1 September 2023, the Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendants mainly based on conspiracy to injure. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants had purportedly utilised the 3rd Defendant to enter the Private Caveats causing the Plaintiff to suffer the following losses:

(a) the Plaintiff was unable to accept the offer from Northport and enter into any transaction for an alleged joint venture project with Northport;

(b) the Plaintiff lost the opportunity to enter into the alleged joint venture project on the Lands for the return which is estimated to be around RM200 million;

(c) for around 5 years, the Plaintiff was unable to enter into any joint venture with any other parties to develop the Lands; and

(d) the Plaintiff had incurred expenses to remove the Private Caveats.

[14] On 25 October 2023, the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed t