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…!
SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court
"], ["LIM CHOON SIONG & ORS vs LIM CHENG LING - 2025 MarsdenLR 4533
"], ["BLACKSPACE SDN BHD vs MITCHELL WONG POU YEE & ORS - High Court
"], ["EKVE SDN BHD vs LAND ADMINISTRATOR DISTRICT OF GOMBAK & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE - High Court
"].BLACKSPACE SDN BHD vs MITCHELL WONG POU YEE & ORS - High Court
"], ["YONG JO @ YONG CHO JOONG & ORS vs YONG LI LING & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 3863
"].SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court
"], ["GLOBAL MARITIME VENTURES BERHAD & ANOR vs IZLIN ISMAIL & ORS (ENCLS 140 141 147 151 157 159 16.... - High Court
"].SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court
"], ["N2N CONNECT BERHAD & ORS vs CHUA TIONG HOONG & ORS - Court Of Appeal
"].LEE WAI CHENG vs CHENG LING KEUN - High Court
"], ["EKVE SDN BHD vs LAND ADMINISTRATOR DISTRICT OF GOMBAK & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE - High Court
"].BLACKSPACE SDN BHD vs MITCHELL WONG POU YEE & ORS - High Court
"], ["YONG JO @ YONG CHO JOONG & ORS vs YONG LI LING & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 3863
"].VINVEST CAPITAL HOLDINGS BERHAD vs EA HOLDINGS BERHAD & ORS (ENCLS 1 3 18 26 34 40 64 94 98 .... - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"].SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court
"], ["LEE WAI CHENG vs CHENG LING KEUN - High Court
"].Analysis and Conclusion:Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 serves a crucial role in ensuring that discovery and inspection of documents are conducted only when necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of a case. The main purpose is to facilitate transparency by requiring parties to disclose relevant documents that are within their possession or control, thereby aiding in just disposal of disputes. The rules emphasize that discovery should be proportionate, relevant, and not used as a tool for fishing expeditions or collateral purposes. Courts exercise discretion based on necessity, and non-compliance can lead to sanctions, but the overarching goal remains to promote fairness and efficiency in litigation ["
SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court
"], ["BLACKSPACE SDN BHD vs MITCHELL WONG POU YEE & ORS - High Court
"].
In civil litigation, access to relevant documents can make or break a case. But how does the court balance transparency with preventing abuse? This is where of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) comes into play. Often referred to as the framework for , ensures parties can obtain necessary evidence while upholding fairness and efficiency.
If you've ever wondered, What is the purpose of ?, this post breaks it down. We'll explore its objectives, criteria, judicial discretion, and real-world applications from key cases. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or simply curious about Malaysian civil procedure, read on for insights grounded in legal precedents.
Note: This article provides general information based on established cases and rules. It is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
establishes a structured and discretionary framework for discovery and inspection in civil proceedings. Its core aim? To facilitate the by allowing parties to access relevant documents. As outlined in key authorities, courts may only order discovery when
.
This prevents —speculative searches for evidence—and focuses on . Documents must be in the of the opposing party and directly tied to disputed issues
.
Discovery and inspection are only to be ordered when the court is satisfied that they are necessary either for a fair resolution of the case or for saving costs.
By streamlining evidence production, promotes cost-effectiveness and avoids unnecessary delays.
Not every request qualifies. Courts apply strict tests under :
. Mere potential usefulness isn't enough.
.
.
In one case, a plaintiff sought inspection of a letter to the Chief Judge for a recusal application. The court dismissed it, stressing: Discovery applications require proof of both ; mere relevance is insufficient
. The burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate why the document is essential (Paras 34, 41, 46).
Judges hold broad discretion to refuse, limit, or adjourn applications if criteria aren't met or discovery isn't timely
. For instance:
.
.
Under r 12, courts can order original document production if authenticity is questioned
. This verifies genuineness without broader fishing.
A notable example: In divorce proceedings, the court allowed financial document discovery, distinguishing it from fishing by emphasizing necessity for fair trial on asset division
. The documents sought were necessary to fairly dispose of the case (Para 70).
Conversely, requests for non-existent compilations were rejected as , not discovery—discovery targets only
. One counterclaim for overpayments failed as it shifted the proof burden and resembled a fishing expedition (Paras 24, 35).
combats misuse:
.
.
These limits protect parties from burdensome, irrelevant demands, aligning with civil procedure's efficiency goals.
Real cases illustrate in action:
: Dismissed for lacking necessity, reinforcing the dual relevance-necessity test.
: Allowed as specific and essential, not speculative.
: Rejected for requiring new compilations and abuse of process—Discovery must pertain to relevant to matters in dispute (Para 24).
: r 12 invoked for originals when copies are doubted.
These precedents show courts scrutinize applications rigorously, prioritizing justice over rote disclosure.
Once approved:- Parties file affidavits listing documents ( r 3).- Inspection follows at reasonable times.- mandates court opinion on necessity before production orders: An order for the production of any documents for inspection... shall not be made unless the court is of the opinion that...
.
This sequence—discovery then inspection—prevents premature or overbroad orders.
balances transparency with efficiency, ensuring civil justice without exploitation.
The purpose of is clear: enable fair, cost-effective civil resolutions through targeted evidence access. By mandating relevance, necessity, and discretion, it curbs abuse while advancing trials
.
In summary:- Prioritizes necessary documents for fair disposal.- Empowers courts to block fishing or untimely bids.- Draws from precedents like those emphasizing proof burdens
.
For tailored guidance in Malaysian courts, engage a legal professional. Stay informed—effective discovery can be your edge.
References (selected):1.
: Overarching purpose and necessity.2.
: Criteria details.3.
: Relevance vs. necessity.4.
: rule. #Order24 #DiscoveryLaw #MalaysiaCivilLaw
Discovery and inspection of documents. 1. .... 3. ... documents are within the respondent's possession before an order for discovery can be made. ... Production to be ordered only if necessary (O 24 r 13) (1) An order for the production of any documents for inspection or to the Court shall not be made under any of the foregoing rules unless the Court is of the opinion that the order is necessary ....
It expressly states as follows: Failure to comply with requirement for discovery (O 24, r 16) 16. (1) If any party who is required by any of the foregoing rules, or by any order made thereunder, to make discovery of documents or to produce any documents for the purpose of inspection ... , and AutoCount audit trails) and had proposed inspection of original documents at the defendants' premises. ... [7] The Defendan....
[11] The Plaintiff argued that the test for discovery of documents for inspection can be found in O 24 r 11 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC"). ... " of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought." ... [29] D1 quoted the case of Nguang Chan (supra) where the Court observed that;- "[11] Under r 13(1) an order for the production of documents for inspection is not to be made unless the Court is of opinion that such #HL_S....
Order; and (8) The Respondent's income tax statements from 2 December 2008 to year 2025; Law On Discovery [9] The discovery and inspection of documents is governed by O 24 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"). ... 12 (discovery and inspection of documents) and O 26 r 1 (discovery by interrogatories) applicable to defended causes begun by petition." ... Discovery of documents in def....
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that Order XI of CPC deals with 3 aspects namely interrogatories, discovery of documents and inspection of documents. The Order XI Rule 12 provides for discovery of documents by either of the parties, on an affidavit. ... 24. Order XI CPC deals with discovery and inspection. This Order may be classified into three ca....
O 24 r 13) (1) An order for the production of any documents for inspection or to the court shall not be made under any of the foregoing rules unless the court is of the opinion that ... or result in confidentiality that threatens the security or privilege as explained in the case of Protasco Bhd (supra): Discovery is thus a precursor to inspection; inspection is not a discovery exercise. ... before deciding on the extent of the order#HL_END....
Only r 10 of O 24 gives the Court jurisdiction to order production for inspection of documents referred in Court documents. ... Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud JCA held, inter alia, that under O 24 r 13(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980, an order for the production of documents for inspection shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that such an order is ... For the purpose of #....
Only r 10 of O 24 gives the Court jurisdiction to order production for inspection of documents referred in Court documents. ... Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud JCA held, inter alia, that under O 24 r 13(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980, an order for the production of documents for inspection shall not be granted unless the Court is satisfied that such an order is ... For the purpose of #....
Order 24 rr 8 and 13 ROC 2012 state that an order for the discovery or production of any documents for inspection shall not be made unless the Court is of the opinion that the order is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. ... Discovery Of Documents Against Third Parties Under Order 24 Rule 7A(2) ROC 2012 [34] The discovery of #HL_STAR....
Order 24 r 8 of the Rules of 2012 reads as follows: "Order 24 Discovery And Inspection Of Documents 8. ... Order 24 r 7a(2) of the Rules of 2012 provides as follows: "Order 24 Discovery And Inspection Of Documents 7A. ... Order 24 r 7A(5) reads as follows: (5) An order for the ....
(i) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (ii) Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
(i) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (ii) Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
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
