JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] This is the plaintiff's application in encl 53, on the ground of non-compliance with a discovery order. This Notice of Application is made pursuant to O 24 r 16 of the Rules of 2012. The Plaintiff is seeking to strike out the defendants' defence.

The Overriding Issue

[2] The overriding issue in this application is whether there has been a failure to comply with the discovery order made by this Court on 26 March 2025 (as reflected in encl 47).

The Applicable Law

[3] The key provision which is the focal point of the present application is O 24 r 16 of the Rules of 2012. It expressly states as follows:

Failure to comply with requirement for discovery (O 24, r 16)

16. (1) If any party who is required by any of the foregoing rules, or by any order made thereunder, to make discovery of documents or to produce any documents for the purpose of inspection or any other purpose fails to comply with any provision of that rule or with that order, as the case may be, then, without prejudice, in the case of a failure to comply with any such provision, to r 11(1), the Court may make such order as it thinks just including, in particular, an order that the action be dismissed or, as the case may be, an order that the defence be struck out and judgment be entered accordingly.

[4] This provision has been alluded to and discussed in a number of cases and these are referred to below.

The Respective Contentions

[5] The fundamental point of contention between the parties centres on whether there has, in fact, been a failure to comply with the discovery order issued by this Court on 26 March 2025.

[6] In this regard, this Court has carefully examined the Order that it has made and the "events" that have transpired to determine this prevailing issue.

[7] The Defendants conceded that the defence may be struck out pursuant to O 24 r 16 of the Rules of 2012, in the event of non-compliance with a discovery order.

[8] The Defendants referred this Court to a number of authorities and these include Uli Auto Parts & Service Sdn Bhd v. Bumi Gt Sdn Bhd (Encls 9 26 & 29): on the drastic nature and power of striking out an action summarily and the questions that a Court should ask, that is, whether the non-compliance is minor or major, whether the non-compliance is contumelious or not and the non-compliance would cause injustice to the other party; and Triple International Limited v. Belia Cermat Sdn Bhd & Ors International': on when discretion should be exercised in favour of striking out a defence.

[9] The primary contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants failed to comply with this Court 's discovery order in encl 47, which it contended "is binding and expressly 'peremptory' in nature".

[10] It was further averred by the plaintiff that this Court 's discovery order in encl 47 required the defendants to disclose specified documents within 14 days, on/before 9 April 2025, failing which the defendants' defence would be struck out with costs.

[11] The Plaintiff also submitted that the defendants:

(a) Did not comply by the stipulated deadline;

(b) Filed no appeal and/or any variation application;

(c) Rejected the plaintiff's request for inspection on 20 May 2025;

(d) Provided contradictory explanations in the defendants' Affidavit in Reply (encl 59); and

(e) Remain in continuing breach as at the date of this Court 's deliberation.

[12] The Plaintiff averred that it has issued multiple written reminder notices on 16 May 2025 and 19 May 2025, respectively, identifying missing documents (including, but not limited to, the 1st and 2nd Defendants' bank statements, INTERPARK customer lists, and AutoCount audit trails) and had proposed inspection of original documents at the defendants' premises. However, these "were ignored and/or refused" and that it was "apparent that the defendants were, at all material times, fully aware of their wilful default".

[13] In response to the authorities cited by the defendants, the plaintiff r