Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Good Cause for Objecting a Discovery - Main points and insights:
Discovery must be necessary for the fair disposal of the cause or matter or for saving costs. An assertion of relevance or necessity alone is insufficient; the objecting party must demonstrate that the documents are essential for these purposes ["
NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"], ["TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"], ["GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 141 147 151 157 159 16.... - High Court
"], ["YONG JO @ YONG CHO JOONG & ORS vs YONG LI LING & ORS - High Court
"], ["MUHAMMED YUSOFF RAWTHER vs DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM; KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH POLIS D.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["KOH KENG JOO & ANOR vs TAN SRI DATO SERI KHALID ABU BAKAR & ORS - High Court
"], ["WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court
"], ["ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"], ["GAN PECK ENG & ORS vs GAN CHAI THIAM - High Court
"], ["CHAN LENNON vs TAN HUEY ZI - High Court
"], ["CHAN LENNON vs TAN HUEY ZI - High Court
"].The court emphasizes that discovery should only be ordered if it is necessary for the cause to be fairly disposed of or to save costs. The burden is on the requesting party to prove necessity, not merely relevance ["
NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"], ["NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"], ["ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"], ["KOH KENG JOO & ANOR vs TAN SRI DATO SERI KHALID ABU BAKAR & ORS - High Court
"], ["GAN PECK ENG & ORS vs GAN CHAI THIAM - High Court
"].Objections can be based on the grounds that the documents are not relevant, not necessary at the current stage, or that discovery is being sought for an improper purpose such as fishing expeditions or tracing (not for discovery but tracing) ["
WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court
"], ["NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"].The court may refuse discovery if it finds that the documents are not related to the issues in the case or that their disclosure would not facilitate fair resolution or cost efficiency ["
TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"], ["YONG JO @ YONG CHO JOONG & ORS vs YONG LI LING & ORS - High Court
"], ["MUHAMMED YUSOFF RAWTHER vs DATO SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM; KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN SIASATAN JENAYAH POLIS D.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"].Specific objections include claims of confidentiality, privacy, or that the discovery request is overly broad or delayed unnecessarily ["
KOH KENG JOO & ANOR vs TAN SRI DATO SERI KHALID ABU BAKAR & ORS - High Court
"], ["WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court
"].Analysis and Conclusion:
Objections to discovery are justified when the requesting party cannot demonstrate that the documents are necessary for a fair and cost-effective resolution of the case. Courts require clear evidence that discovery will directly aid in disposing of the cause or matter fairly or will help save costs. Mere relevance or relevance labels are insufficient; the objector must show that disclosure is not necessary at the current stage or that the request is an abuse, such as a fishing expedition or an attempt to trace documents without proper basis ["
NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"], ["TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"], ["ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"].In conclusion, valid causes to object to discovery include lack of necessity for fair disposal or cost-saving, irrelevance to the issues, improper purpose, or procedural delays. The overarching principle is that discovery should be limited to what is essential for just and efficient case resolution ["
NAVANEETH PERPAKARAN vs RETHA NADARAJAH (ENCL 11) - High Court
"], ["TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"].
In litigation, is a critical phase where parties exchange relevant information to build their cases. However, not every request for documents or evidence should be granted. Courts closely scrutinize applications to prevent abuse, ensure fairness, and costs. If you're wondering what are the good causes to object to ?, this post breaks down the primary grounds, supported by legal precedents, primarily from Malaysian Rules of (Order 24).
Understanding these objections can help litigants protect their interests without unnecessary disclosure. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
allows parties to obtain documents or information relevant to the dispute, but it's not unlimited. Under Order 24 of the Rules of , courts may order only under strict conditions. Objections arise when these conditions aren't met, preventing —broad, speculative requests aimed at uncovering unknown evidence.
Courts emphasize that must be necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.
This principle ensures efficiency and .
Here are the main grounds for objection, drawn from established case law:
A cornerstone objection is . The requesting party must clearly show how the documents relate to disputed issues. Broad assertions won't suffice. As stated: In an application for , the applicant must clearly establish the relevance of the documents sought to the issues in dispute. It is not sufficient for a party to merely make broad assertions of relevance without providing a detailed explanation as to how the documents sought are pertinent to the matters before the .
In practice, vague requests lacking specificity are often denied as . For instance, plaintiffs seeking bank documents for acquisitions failed because they didn't identify specific documents or prove relevance under the .
can't be ordered unless the documents are in the responding party's , , or power. The shall not order unless the documents are in the , , or power of the party from whom is sought.
In one case, courts confirmed criteria including when granting to defendants, implying objections succeed otherwise.
Similarly, third-party requests were dismissed when statutory prohibitions or lack of applied.
Courts reject used to fish for evidence supporting vague pleadings. will not be granted to enable particulars of justification to be delivered where the request is merely to support vague allegations.
Recent cases reinforce this: Applications for share transaction documents from third parties were dismissed as due to lack of specificity and alternative means available to plaintiffs. The noted: applications must be specific and relevant to the matters at issue; vague requests, deemed as , will be denied.
Even relevant documents may be refused if not necessary. states: The , if satisfied that is not necessary...may dismiss or adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make such an order if and so far as it is of the opinion that is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.
must be demonstrated beyond mere relevance. In matrimonial disputes, involving third-party bankers unnecessarily escalated costs without benefit. 2024 Supreme(HK)(HKFC) 468
Objections based on , , or (e.g., under securities laws) are standard. While specifics vary, courts uphold these to protect sensitive information. Procedural failures, like excluding affected parties, also lead to dismissal.
Relevance and Specificity Denied: Plaintiffs' broad bank requests for acquisitions were rejected—not 'banker’s books,' lacking specificity, and irrelevant. Result: Application dismissed.
Lacking: Share transaction opposed successfully due to statutory and available alternatives. : Mere identification of individuals doesn't justify if prohibitions apply.
Judicial Review Rarity: is rare unless essential facts are disputed.
These cases show courts' discretion to refuse overbroad or harassing requests, promoting efficiency.
Courts may order marginally relevant if vital for a fair trial, but objections prevail against harassment or undue burden. In criminal contexts (though less directly applicable), -like recoveries under require direct causation, excluding speculative info. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2720 2007 0 Supreme(Gau) 537
When facing a request:- Demand proof of relevance: Challenge vague claims.
- Assert no /: Provide if needed.
- Label as fishing expedition: Highlight lack of specificity.
- Prove lack of : Show alternatives exist or costs outweigh benefits.
- Invoke privilege: Cite applicable protections early.
File timely objections to avoid waiver.
Good causes to object to —, lack of , , unnecessary requests, and privilege—safeguard against abuse. Grounded in Rules of and precedents like
, these ensure serves justice, not fishing.
Key Takeaways:- Relevance must be detailed, not asserted.- trumps relevance alone.- Vague requests invite dismissal.
For tailored advice, engage legal counsel. Stay informed to navigate effectively.
This post provides general insights based on public legal documents and is not legal advice.
#DiscoveryObjections, #LegalDiscovery, #CivilProcedure
3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rr 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the ... An assertion that the documents are relevant will not be good enough. Equally, an assertion that the documents are necessary because they are relevant will not be enough." [24] This was also clearly stated in M Wealth Corridor Sdn Bhd v. ... application is done in good#H....
fair disposal of the cause or saving costs. ... necessary to dispose of the cause or matter fairly, or for the purpose of saving costs. ... [Emphasis Added] [39] The Court then emphasised that the documents sought after in the discovery must be specific, where the contents must relate directly to the cause or matter in issue which will fulfil the purposes of discovery of ... The content of the Letter to CJM has nothing to do with this Case nor its cause of action. C. ... Besides, it....
order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs." ... The main object of the provisions of the Act is to enable evidence to be procured and given and to relieve bankers from the necessity of attending and producing their books. They do not give any new power of discovery or alter the principles of law or the practice with regard to discovery." ... There were serious issues to be tried in this suit with suf....
order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs." ... The main object of the provisions of the Act is to enable evidence to be procured and given and to relieve bankers from the necessity of attending and producing their books. They do not give any new power of discovery or alter the principles of law or the practice with regard to discovery." ... There were serious issues to be tried in this suit with suf....
by Defendant and third-parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. ... The notification and filing deadlines set forth in this Protocol may be extended based on the written agreement of the parties, or by any party requesting the same from the Court upon good cause shown. ... The third party had fourteen days after receiving notice to object to disclosure or assert a claim of privilege. ROA.126 ¶ 5(c)(ii). ... As a result, HSE was forced to assert privilege after it....
is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.". ... As a general rule, pre-action discovery can relate to proposed cause of action as well as relief. The threshold test to satisfy an order for pre-action discovery at common law was high in contrast to application for discovery in an action. ... make such an order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for ....
ROC 2012: [2017] 5 MLJ 63 at p 74, lines C to D: It is clear to this Court that the object of judicial estoppel is to prevent a party who assumes a particular position in litigation to take an inconsistent position in later litigation.
Order 24 r 8 Discovery to be ordered only if necessary On the hearing of an application for an order under rr 3, 7 or 7A, the Court, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the cause or ... matter, may dismiss or adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make such an order if and so far, as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. ... [25] As stated earlier the real....
adjourn the application and shall in any case refuse to make such an order if and so far as it is of the opinion that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. ... An assertion that the documents are relevant will not be good enough. Equally, an assertion that the documents are necessary because they are relevant will not be enough.' ... This overarching requirement is expressly provided in O 24 r 8 of ROC 2012: On the hearing of an application for an order under rr 3, 7 or 7A, the ....
(3) The Court will not make an order unless the discovery sought is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. ... The fact that the husband refused her discovery request, is not a good and sufficient reason for her to trigger an application against the banker. To involve a third party, ie the banker, will achieve nothing but only complicate the procedures and escalate unnecessary costs. ... dismiss or, as the case may be, adjourn the application and shall in any case r....
In the present case, though there is recovery of an object, there is no conclusive evidence of the object discovered being connected to the crime and hence recovery does not graduate to any inference of guilt. The recovery of the object must lead to the discovery of a fact.
This was interpreted as meaning “directly, indubitably, strictly, unmistakably.” The information referred to must be the “direct and immediate cause of the discovery”. In the present case, the so-called discovery fails these tests.
In order to render the information admissible the fact discovered must be relevant and must have been such that it constitutes the information through which the discovery was made. What should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the fact with each other as the 'cause and effect'. The concealment of the fact which is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the information was true. That information which does not....
What should be discovered is the material fact and the information that is admissible is that which has caused that discovery so as to connect e the information and the fact with each other as the 'cause and effect'. That information which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that portion of the information which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible under section 27 and cannot be proved. The concealment of the fact which r is not known to the police is what is discovered by the information and lends assurance that the informatio....
The part of the statement, which really led to the discovery of the facts aforesaid, was the statement, "I shall show the place, where "Nabow' is lying", for, it was acting upon this information that the police had come, led by the accused, to the house in question, and found the dead body of Krishna lying there. In short, the immediate cause of the discovery was. as laid down in Mohmed Inayatullah (supra), the accused-appellant's statement, "I shall show the place, where 'Nabow' is lying".
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
