Back
Next 
2018 MarsdenLR 1524
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
BANDAR UTAMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
BANDAR UTAMA 1 JMB – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: B-02(A)-1303-07-2017]
Petitioner Advocates:Max Yong,S Malar ,Respondent Advocate: Alvin Julian,Munawwir
Pre-action discovery should not impinge on contractual parties nor be sought if alternative legal remedies are available.
Headnote:The judgment examines the interpretation of O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 pertaining to pre-action discovery. The appellants contest the High Court's decision to grant the respondent's application, citing alternative avenues available to resolve the dispute under the Strata Management Act 2013. The appellate court finds significant jurisprudential flaws in the original judgment, determining that it was an abuse of process to seek pre-action discovery under the circumstances presented. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order set aside with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdictional focus in pre-action discovery is distinct from standard discovery. (Para 1) |
[1] The appellants appealed against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who had allowed the respondent's application for pre-action discovery pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rules of 2012 ( ROC 2012).
