JUDGMENT

John Lee Kieh How @ Mohd Johan Lee J:

(For An Application Under Order 24 Rule 7A Of The Rules Of 2012)

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff in the main action had filed a discovery application under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of 2012 ('ROC 2012") ("this Application") against the Parties sought to be Discovered (hereinafter "the RMP") to produce a polygraph test result conducted on the Plaintiff on 17 December 2019 at the Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman by the Crimes Investigation Department (hereinafter "the Polygraph Test Results"). An affidavit in support of this Application was affirmed by the Plaintiff.

[2] Subsequently, the Defendant filed an affidavit in reply opposing this Application. The Affidavit was affirmed by himself. On the same day, the RMP filed an affidavit in reply affirmed by ASP Mohd Khairul Ridzuan bin Khiruddin, the investigating officer responsible for the criminal investigation pertaining to the Plaintiff's criminal case. This was then responded to in the two affidavits in reply affirmed by the Plaintiff.

[3] As instructed by this Court , the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the RMP then filed in their respective written submissions and written replies. This was followed by an oral submission Session before me. Briefly, the following are the parties' submissions regarding this Application.

The Plaintiff's Submissions

[4] The Plaintiff's submissions are premised on 2 key points; Firstly, The Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the Defendant has no locus tooppose the application in the view that an order is sought against the RMP and not the Defendant himself.

[5] Secondly, the Plaintiff claims that his request for discovery of the Polygraph Test Results fulfilled the requirements in Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Nutech Company Limited & Anor (Encl 57); [2017] 10 MLJ 213; [2017] 1 CLJ 179 particularly that:

(i) It is relevant to the proceedings as it is a corroborative element to prove the Plaintiff's case of a tort of sexual assault and/or trespass to person.

(ii) It is necessary for the fair disposal of the cause as its early production at this stage ie, before the commencement of trial would facilitate the preparation for the trial and allow for better appreciation of the issues arising out of the suit.

(iii) That the document sought to be discovered is not privileged because it is not specified within the Schedule to s 2A of the Official Secrets Act 1972.

[6] For the first point, the Plaintiff relied on the interpretation of O 24 r 7A of ROC 2012 in the case decided by the High Court of Singapore in VisionHealthOne Corp Pte Ltd v. HD Holdings Pte Ltd and other (Chan Wai Chuen and anor) [2010] SGHC 78; [2010] 3 97, wherein the Court held that:

[17] The references to "the person against whom the order is made" in 24 r 6(1), "a person who is not a party to the proceedings" in O 24 r 6(2) and the language employed in O 24 r 6(8) (in respect of inspection and production for inspection of the Ordered Documents under O 24 rr 10 and 11 respectively) indicate that an order for non-party discovery is directed solely against the non-party from whom discovery is sought, ie, it is clearly envisaged that an application for non-party discovery is a matter exclusively between the applicant and the non-party respondent. This principle applies across the board to both instances in which pre-action non-party discovery was made by way of originating summons (see O 24 r 6(1)) and by way of summons in ongoing proceedings between two parties (see O 24 r 6(2)).

[Emphasis Added]

[7] The Plaintiff relies on this interpretation to espouse the lack of locus standi by the Defendant to challenge this Application. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant is not a party sought to be discovered. Hence, the discovery application becomes an exclusive suit between the Plaintiff and the RMP. The Defendant has no business in this Application.

[8] The Plaintiff also premises that under the second consideration, namely the el