JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] There are three suits before this Court involving the same defendant - AIA Bhd, but different plaintiffs. In each of these suits, the parties filed mirror interlocutory applications namely:

(a) Plaintiff's Application for disclosure of documents to prove wrongful termination and blacklisting.

(b) Defendant's Application to strike out large portions of the Plaintiff's claim, alleging the pleadings are frivolous and exaggerated (with billions claimed as damages).

(c) Application to consolidate and transfer this Johor Bahru suit to Kuala Lumpur to be heard with a related case.

[2] All the applications were heard together. Suit No JA-22NCC-24-03/2025 was treated as the lead case, and the decision on each application in this suit shall apply equally and bind the other two suits.

[3] Parties filed written submissions together with bundles of authorities for each of the applications, and oral submissions were heard on 10 September 2025. The Court reserved its decision on 30 September 2025. What follows are the Court 's decisions and the grounds thereof.

Background

[4] The Plaintiffs were insurance agents of the defendant and were entitled to allowances, commissions, and incentives in accordance with the Agency Compensation Handbook. Their agency contract was terminated due to allegations of misconduct related to "premium financing". Following the termination, the defendant also referred the plaintiffs to the Life Insurance Association of Malaysia (LIAM) to be listed under Category 1 of the Referred Agent Listing, thereby preventing them from continuing in the financial services industry.

[5] The Plaintiffs contend that the terminations were wrongful, unlawful, and procedurally irregular. Hence, the plaintiffs claim to have lost substantial future income, suffered reputational harm, and endured emotional distress. They seek, among others, declarations that the terminations were wrongful and unlawful, payment of outstanding commissions, special damages for loss of future income, general damages, exemplary and aggravated damages, removal of their names from LIAM's Referred Agent Listing, publication of apologies in national newspapers, interest, and costs.

[6] The Defendant denies that the terminations were wrongful or unlawful. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had breached the express terms of the agency contracts as well as their fiduciary duties by participating in a fraudulent scheme designed to manipulate the defendant's remuneration system through practices such as "premium financing" and sales to non-genuine customers.

[7] The Defendant further asserts that the referral of the Plaintiffs to LIAM's Referred Agent Listing was proper, justified, and protected by privilege. It rejects the quantum of damages claimed as excessive, speculative, and motivated by greed.

Court Analysis

A. Plaintiff's Application For Disclosure Of Documents (Enclosure 8)

[8] The Court in Yekambaran Marimuthu v. Malayawata Steel Berhad; [1994] 2 CLJ 581 articulated the foundational principles governing discovery as follows:

"[1] The essential elements for an order for discovery are threefold, namely first, there must be a 'document', secondly, the document must be 'relevant' and thirdly, the document must be or have been in the 'possession, custody or power' of the person against whom the order for discovery is sought".

[9] The Court of Appeal in Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya & Ors v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Another Appeal; [2018] 2 MLJ 322; [2018] 1 CLJ 258 in relying on the Federal Court decision in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad & Other Appeals; [2014] 6 MLJ 31; [2014] 7 CLJ 597; [2014] 5 AMR 285 further explained the principles of discovery as follows:

"[77] In Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad & Other Appeals; [2014] 6 MLJ 31; [2014] 7 CLJ 597; [2014] 5 AMR 285, the Federal Court held that the underlying principle which underscores the discovery process is that