• Test of Relevance - The primary criterion for discovery is that the documents must be relevant to the issues in dispute. Relevance alone, however, is not sufficient; the documents must also be necessary for the fair disposal of the suit or to save costs. For example, the documents sought by the Plaintiff in an application for discovery must be specifically identified and relevant to the issues ["

  DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

  "], ["

  TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "], ["

  Selve ap R Renganathen vs Sowbhagyavati ap Renganathen & Ors

  "].

• Necessity (Materiality) over Fairness - The courts emphasize that the key test is necessity, not fairness. The applicant must demonstrate that the documents are necessary to the case, not merely relevant or potentially helpful. As stated, the test is necessity not fairness and it is for the applicant to satisfy the Court ["

  DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

  "], ["

  WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "], ["

  PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Klang

  "].

• Specificity and Identification - The documents requested must be clearly and specifically identified to avoid being considered a fishing expedition. Broad or open-ended requests, especially over lengthy timelines, are likely to be dismissed. Documents requested in discovery must be specifically identified ["

  DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

  "], ["

  TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "], ["

  Selve ap R Renganathen vs Sowbhagyavati ap Renganathen & Ors

  "].

• Relevance vs. Necessity - While relevance is a prerequisite, the court assesses whether the documents are necessary for the fair and efficient disposal of the suit ["

  DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

  "], ["

  PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Klang

  "]. Documents unrelated to the core issues or involving dismissed parties generally do not meet the relevance test ["

  DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

  "], ["

  KENNETH CHOONG YEW PHING vs YAP BENG LEE & ORS (ENCLS 161 162 163 167 168 190 235 245 252 & 2.... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "].

• Pre-Action vs. In-Action Discovery - The threshold for pre-action discovery is higher, requiring the applicant to prove the necessity before proceedings commence, to aid in deciding whether to initiate a claim ["

  YONG JO @ YONG CHO JOONG & ORS vs YONG LI LING & ORS - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "]. Post-claim discovery can be broader but still requires relevance and necessity.

• Fishing Expeditions and Oppressive Requests - Courts will dismiss applications if they appear to be fishing expeditions or oppressive, or if the discovery sought would impose undue burdens. The Court will dismiss an application if it finds that the applicant is merely fishing for evidence ["

  BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD vs ANGKATAN KOPERASI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA BERHAD & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "].

• Procedural Requirements - The applicant must serve the discovery application and affidavits on all relevant parties, including third parties if applicable, and must demonstrate that the documents are not privileged and are within the control of the respondent ["

  PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Klang

  "], ["

  NATASHA BEVERLY DENTAL SDN BHD vs ARLENA PHILIP LEE - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

  "].

Analysis and Conclusion:The test for an applicant seeking discovery of documents in an assessment of damages involves demonstrating that the documents are relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for the fair disposal of the case or to save costs. The applicant must specifically identify the documents, avoid broad or vague requests, and establish their necessity rather than merely relevance. Courts are cautious to prevent fishing expeditions and will dismiss applications that lack specificity, are oppressive, or involve irrelevant or dismissed parties. The emphasis remains on necessity over fairness, ensuring that discovery aids in just and efficient resolution of the suit ["

DR WHO (M) SDN BHD & ANOR vs DR WHO GLOBAL WATERTECH (S) PTE LTD & ORS - High Court Malaya Johor Bahru

TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

Selve ap R Renganathen vs Sowbhagyavati ap Renganathen & Ors

PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court Malaya Klang