1. ) NEWACTION MARKETING SDN BHD 2. ) TAN HENG TA v LEE LUN TEONG

wa-22ncc-88-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 10 November 2025 • WA-22NCC-88-02/2025 • 9 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

discovery of an alleged Friendly Loan Agreement-Order 24 and/or Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court 2012-Order 24 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 allows the Court to order any party to give discovery by serving a list of all documents which are or have been in that party’s possession, custody, or power, including those the party relies on, and those which could adversely affect or support any party’s case-Order 24 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides that the Court will only order discovery if it is satisfied that the discovery sought is necessary for the fair disposal of the case or for saving costs, and may dismiss it if it is not necessary-The applicable judicial test for discovery is well settled. To obtain an order for discovery, the applicant must satisfy four principles. These are-i.the document must be identified-ii. the document must not only be relevant but also necessary to the disposal of the matter fairly; -iii. the document must be or have been in the possession, custody, or power of the party against whom the order is sought; and-iv.the discovery 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. The test is not whether the discovery would fairly dispose of the case, save time of trial and cost of calling witnesses. The emphasis is on necessity not fairness and it is for the applicant to satisfy the court. The burden is on the applicant and he must provide materials to satisfy the court of such necessity. -HC dismissed the discovery of telephone records where the applicant failed to substantiate the existence of the records or to prove that they were within the defendants’ possession-A mere and/or bare assertion by the defendant without any evidence cannot be a sufficient basis for an order for discovery-“[13] Finally the court would dismiss a plaintiff’s application for discovery if it is of the view that the plaintiff was ‘merely fishing for evidence to prop up his case’ and to allow him discovery would be unduly oppressive to the party giving discovery.”

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Armiy Rais Firm Athari Firm Ahmad Ezmeel bin Ahmad Tarmizi Counsel Plaintiff Athari bin Bahardin Counsel Plaintiff Ong Swee Long Counsel Defendant Teo Chung Loong Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

NEWACTION MARKETING Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Lee Lun Teong Defendant Tan Heng Ta Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (5)

UK (3)
[1991] 1 WLR 607 [1991] 2 All ER 890 [1995] 1 WLR 447
MY (2)
[2009] 5 MLJ 40 [2021] MLJU 2157

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-88-02-2025)