Aia Bhd. v Lee Chun Kai (WA-22NCC-202-03/2025)

AIA BHD.

AIA PUBLIC Takaful Bhd.

AIA General Berhad (NO. SYARIKAT: 201001040438) (924363-W)) …PLAINTIFF-PLAINTIFF

AND LEE CHUN KAI

LOW PEI SUN

CHOUNG SZE YEE

SHARON JAMES PANG

LUA WEI HUN

MOHD. FARID BIN AB. KARIM

IMRAN AKHIM BIN ZULKIFLY

CHARLOTTE WONG

KOK PEEK BOON

CHOW SHIAW SHIANG

YEO KIAN BOON

LIEW SOOK YEN

LAW KUAN TING

FOZILA BINTI MOHTAR

RUSILAH BINTI KHALIL

TEH KAI LUN

CHENG JIAN HONG

LIEW KAM HIN

MUHAMAD RIDZUAN BIN ABDULLAH

TAN JIN HONG

HEIW HUE YIN

MAH JEE ONN

MUHAMMAD BIN ABDULLAH

NADIAH BINTI MD SALLEH

TAN EE LEEN

TAN SWEE YING

CHIN KHAR POH

LUI JUN

DANIAL AFIQ BIN ZULKIFLY

NATASHA SHARENA IDRIS

SAIFULNIZAM BIN MUCHIMUN

YEW TEE CHIN

LEE KAR YUN

SIA YONG WEI

LEE SHU MEI

WONG YEN LU

TEE LEE NAR

AMYLIA NADIA BINTI BADRUL AFANDI

LOH HUAY AI

TAN LAY PING

MOHD RIDUAN BIN MOHFOP

YONG KWEI LUEN

RABIATUL HAZWANI BINTI ROSLI

NGOI CHAI HSAI

FATIHAH NOORERMA BINTI MAHAT

MUHAMAD AZHAR BIN SELAMAT

LIM SU THYE

SIM MEI JUN

LIM KIEN SIANG

WONG SHI QING

ONG CHEE SAI

GOH POH WEI

CHENG QIAN YEE

DANIAL HAFIY BIN ABDUL HALIM

MUHD MUJAHID AZFAR BIN ABDULLAH

FAZRIL RADZLI BIN MUSTAFFA

DESLEY TNG ZE HOW

JAINIS STEPHEN

LEE WENG FEI

SUM MUN YOONG

MONG YEE HONG

AHMAD ZHARIF BIN AHMAD SILMI

TIONG SIEW CHIN

NG XIN PING

LAM KAE SHIN

TAN JIA GEOK

TAN KA HAN

TAN JUNSHUO

NUR SYAFIQ ASYRAF BIN MAT LAZIM

SHUM CHING JOO

SIA KEE WOO

TIOW CHEE WAI

WONG KAM HOW

LIM MENG JIN

FOONG WAI HOE

ANG LAY CHENG

PHANG CHUN KIAT

GOW JIA LE

MELVIN TIE SIN YON

LIM HUEY LI

LEONG MIN LEONG

ABDULLAH IKMAR BIN KAMARUDDIN

AMIR 'IRFAN BIN KAMARUDDIN (NO. K/P: 940217-04-5235) …DEFENDANT-DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 404 — Application for Specific Discovery)

This is an application by the Plaintiffs (Enclosure 404) under Order 24 Rules 3, 5, 7, 8 and 16 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012") for specific discovery of documents against all 83 Defendants. The application was heard on 3 April 2026 and judgment was delivered on the same date.

The Plaintiffs are AIA Bhd. ("AIAB"), AIA PUBLIC Takaful Bhd. ("APTB") and AIA General Berhad ("AIGB"), three licensed insurance and takaful companies operating in Malaysia through an agency model. The Defendants are former or current agents of the Plaintiffs within the "WA District" of the Plaintiffs' agency network.

The documents sought are set out in nine categories in Annexure A to Enclosure 404 ("Annexure A"). Broadly, they encompass WhatsApp group communications and emails, internal training materials, WA District information stored on any platform, agreements and undertakings, bonus and incentive calculation materials, individual communications between each Defendant and the 1st Defendant, communications between each Defendant and recruited agents, specific communications by the 17th Defendant on 5 July 2023, and credit or debit card statements for the 1st to 82nd Defendants.

The central question is whether the nine categories satisfy the test of strict necessity under Order 24 Rule 8 of the ROC 2012 for the fair disposal of this action or for saving costs. For the reasons set out below, this Court is satisfied that they do. The application is allowed in its entirety, with costs in the cause.

The Plaintiffs distribute their insurance, family takaful and general insurance products through a network of agents. Each agent enters into an Agency Contract with the relevant Plaintiff, which imposes express and implied duties of honesty, professionalism and ethical conduct.

The 1st Defendant, Lee Chun Kai, served as the District Manager of the WA District and occupied a position of supervisory leadership over the remaining Defendants who were agents within that District.

The Plaintiffs allege that, commencing around 2020, the 1st Defendant devised and orchestrated a scheme described in the Statement of Claim as the "Fraudulent Scheme" or "Business Opportunity Programme". The substance of the scheme, as pleaded, is that the Defendants sold insurance and takaful products to persons who were not genuine customers, using the Defendants' own credit or debit cards — or those of other agents — to pay the premiums. This practice is expressly prohibited by the Plaintiffs' internal policies and circulars.

The purpose of the Fraudulent Scheme, as alleged, was to fabricate the appearance of achieved sales targets so as to maximise commissions, bonuses and incentives payable by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants ("Inauthentic Payments").

Following an internal investigation, the Plaintiffs suspended and subsequently terminated a number of Defendants. The Plaintiffs then commenced the present proceedings claiming: (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii) conspiracy to injure the Plaintiffs by unlawful means. The Plaintiffs seek the return of all Inauthentic Payments together with general damages, aggravated and/or exemplary damages, interest and costs.

Enclosure 404 was filed to compel specific documentary disclosure from all Defendants so as to enable this Court to adjudicate upon the pleaded issues on a complete evidential footing. III. PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS A. Plaintiffs' Submissions 11. The Plaintiffs advance four principal submissions.

First, the documents sought exist, are identified with sufficient precision, and are within the possession, custody or power of the Defendants. In particular, the Defendants participated in internal training through a dedicated portal and were members of the "WA - Core Team" WhatsApp group, meaning communications, training materials and financial records generated in the course of their agency activities would necessarily remain in their possession.

Second, the documents are directly relevant and material to the pleaded case concerning the Fraudulent Scheme, the unauthorised use of Premium Financing or Contribution Financing, and the manipulation of the Plaintiffs' remuneration structure.

Third, discovery is strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. Production will enable this Court to determine the real issues on a complete factual footing and to establish the flow of funds and the individual involvement and responsibility of each Defendant.

Fourth, the confidentiality of the documents sought — including personal bank statements and private electronic communications — is not a lawful ground to resist disclosure where their production is demanded by the interests of justice. B. Submissions of the 1st Defendant and 35 Other Defendants 16. This group resists the application on five grounds.

First, the application constitutes a "fishing expedition". It employs sweeping, catch-all language ("ALL records", "ALL training materials") spanning more than four years and is designed to trawl for evidence rather than to seek identifiable documents.

Second, the application seeks discovery beyond the pleaded case. The Statement of Claim pleads conspiracy in relation to premium financing but does not plead that the conspiracy was executed through WhatsApp or electronic messaging. Discovery, they argue, cannot be used to supplement or enlarge an unpleaded case.

Third, the requested documents are not within the Defendants' possession, custody or power. Many items — such as training materials, agency manuals and bonus calculation sheets — originate from and are stored in the Plaintiffs' own internal systems, access to which was blocked upon the Defendants' termination.

Fourth, discovery is unnecessary given that the Plaintiffs, prior to filing suit, claimed to have conducted an internal investigation that yielded sufficient evidence to justify termination. If adequate evidence already exists, wide-ranging discovery is unnecessary and disproportionate.

Fifth, the application was filed more than 700 days after the Defendants were suspended or terminated and constitutes an oppressive afterthought designed to search for evidence to support a termination already effected without sufficient proof. C. Submissions of the 51st Defendant 22. The 51st Defendant resists the application and has filed an individual affidavit in support of her objections. She deposes that the documents sought are not within her control; that she left the WA District WhatsApp group many years prior to the commencement of proceedings and is unable to retrieve past communications from that group; and that compelling production of her personal credit and debit card statements are highly intrusive and irrelevant to the core issues.

D. Submissions of the 52nd Defendant The 52nd Defendant also resists the application and has filed her own individual affidavit. She deposes that the Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that the alleged documents or communications actually exist; that there is no factual nexus connecting her to the communications or documents sought; that there is no evidence she was involved in the alleged fraudulent scheme or that any responsive documents are in her possession; and that the application is a speculative investigative exercise designed to construct a case against her that has yet to be substantiated.

E. Submissions of the 74th Defendant and 13 Other Defendants This group raises four objections. First, the catch-all drafting of the application violates the legal requirement that discovery requests be specific. Second, since the Plaintiffs previously represented that suit was filed only after gathering all evidence, demanding further documents is speculative and vexatious. Third — and most fundamentally — compelling the Defendants to produce documents incriminating themselves in the alleged conspiracy impermissibly shifts the burden of proving the conspiracy from the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. Fourth, the credit and debit card statements requested are private, sensitive and confidential.

IV. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION This Court identifies the following issues for determination: i. Whether the Plaintiffs have discharged their burden of establishing that the documents in Annexure A are strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or for saving costs, under Order 24 Rule 8 of the ROC 2012. ii. Whether the application constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition for want of specificity. iii. Whether the documents sought are within the possession, custody or power of the defendants, having regard to the individual affidavits of the 51st and 52nd defendants. iv. Whether discovery of electronic communications is impermissible on the ground that the conspiracy was not expressly pleaded as having been conducted through such means. v. Whether the application impermissibly shifts the burden of proof from the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. vi. Whether confidentiality and privacy are valid grounds to resist the discovery sought. vii. Whether the delay in filing the application renders it oppressive or an abuse of process. viii. What consequence shall follow upon non-compliance and what is the legal basis for that consequence. V. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. The Governing Provisions 26. The legal framework for specific discovery is found in Order 24 of the ROC 2012. Order 24 Rule 3(1) empowers the court to order any party to make and file an affidavit stating whether documents specified or described in the application are or at any time have been in that party's possession, custody or power, and if not, when that party parted with them and what has become of them. Order 24 Rule 5(1) confers the corresponding power to order production.

The critical limiting provision is Order 24 Rule 8, which provides: "On the hearing of an application for an order under Rule 3, 5, 6 or 7, the Court may, if satisfied that discovery is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs, refuse to make such an order."

The consequence of non-compliance is governed by Order 24 Rule 16(1) of the ROC 2012, which provides: "If any party fails to comply with any order made under Rules 3, 5, 6 or 7, or to make discovery of any document which he is required by any such rule to make discovery of, the Court may make such order as it thinks just including, in particular, an order that the action be dismissed or, as the case may be, that the defence be struck out and judgment be given accordingly." B. The Test of Strict Necessity 29. The test under Order 24 Rule 8 is not mere relevance but strict necessity. As affirmed in Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors [1 LNS 1252], the ultimate and overriding test is whether discovery is strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or for saving costs. Relevance alone, without more, is insufficient to compel production.

In Nguang Chan aka Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v Hai-O Enterprise Bhd & Ors [5 MLJ 40], the court held that the burden lies on the party seeking production to satisfy the court that the discovery is strictly necessary. The applicant cannot discharge this burden by mere assertion; it must demonstrate with particularity why the documents sought are necessary to advance its own case or to meet the case of its opponent. C. The Fishing Expedition Prohibition 31. Courts will not sanction discovery that amounts to a "fishing expedition" — an exercise designed to trawl through documents in the hope of uncovering evidence to support an allegation, rather than to obtain documents whose existence is already established or reasonably apprehended. In Tanjung Rhu Land Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kauthar Venture Capital Sdn Bhd [MLJU 964; 1 LNS 768], the court held that a party is not entitled to discovery of documents whose identity is not specified with reasonable precision and which are sought for the purpose of exploring whether a cause of action exists.

However, as held in Ewe Khay Guan v Chin Oi Khiun [12 MLJ 893], where the applicant clearly specifies and identifies the relevant documents, rather than making a generalised, sweeping request, and where the application is driven by the specific facts of the case rather than by speculation, it does not amount to a fishing expedition. The court must examine each application on its own facts under Order 24 Rule 8 rather than by rigid adherence to principles abstracted from other decisions. D. Possession, Custody or Power 33. In Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [2 CLJ 581], the court held that the applicant must establish that the documents sought actually exist and are or have been in the possession, custody or power of the party against whom the order is sought. A bare assumption that documents exist is insufficient. However, the standard applicable at the discovery stage is not the civil balance of probabilities; the court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the documents exist and are or have been in the respondent's possession, custody or power. E. Scope of Discovery in Relation to Pleadings 34. Discovery is not confined to documents expressly mentioned in the pleadings. Order 24 Rule 3(1) extends to documents "relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter." A matter is "in question" if it is likely to be of consequence in determining the action, whether or not it is expressly pleaded as such. Discovery may extend to documents that are relevant to issues that will necessarily arise, even if those issues are not the subject of specific averments: see N2N Connect Bhd & Ors v Chua Tiong Hoong & Ors [4 MLRA 720] and Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Co Ltd & Anor [10 MLJ 213]. F. Confidentiality as a Ground of Resistance 35. It is settled law that confidentiality, by itself, is not a valid ground to resist an order for discovery. Where a document is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings, the court will order its production notwithstanding any private interest in confidentiality. The interests of justice in the fair adjudication of disputes override private interests in non-disclosure. This principle applies with particular force in cases of alleged fraud, where the court's interest in ascertaining the truth is at its highest. G. Admissibility and Relevance of Bank and Financial Statements 36. In Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd & Ors [11 MLJ 729], the court affirmed that bank statements and other financial records are highly relevant evidence admissible to determine the flow of funds and to resolve disputed facts in commercial disputes. This Court adopts that proposition without qualification. VI. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue (i): Strict Necessity 37. This Court is satisfied that each category of documents in Annexure A satisfies the test of strict necessity under Order 24 Rule 8.

The Plaintiffs' case is built upon three overlapping causes of action — breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. Each cause of action requires the Plaintiffs to establish at trial both the existence of the Fraudulent Scheme and the nature and degree of each Defendant's participation in it. These are not abstract propositions; they call for granular, document-based proof.

This Court examines each category in turn.

Category 1 — WhatsApp group communications and emails within the WA District (1 January 2020 to 28 February 2024). The Plaintiffs allege that the Fraudulent Scheme was orchestrated within the WA District structure. Internal communications between members of that structure are the most direct evidence of whether the scheme was coordinated, who participated in that coordination, and what was communicated in furtherance of it. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 2 — Training materials delivered during internal training sessions conducted by WA District members. The Plaintiffs allege that the 1st Defendant used the internal training apparatus to disseminate the methodology of the Fraudulent Scheme. Training materials received by individual Defendants are probative of the state of knowledge of each Defendant as to the mechanics of the scheme. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 3 — WA District materials and information stored on any platform or application (1 January 2020 to 28 February 2024). This category captures materials distributed or stored digitally within the WA District structure. It complements Category 1 in that it captures structured information rather than communications, and is directly relevant to establishing the scope and content of the scheme's internal apparatus. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 4 — Agreements, memoranda and undertakings given by WA District members and signed by the Defendants. The existence of any formal or informal arrangement between the 1st Defendant and the other Defendants is directly probative of the conspiracy alleged. Signed documents are particularly significant as evidence of knowledge and consent. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 5 — Bonus and incentive calculation materials provided to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' claim for the return of Inauthentic Payments turns on establishing the quantum of commissions, bonuses and incentives paid and the basis upon which they were calculated. This category goes directly to the financial dimension of the scheme alleged. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 6 — All communications between the Defendants and the 1st Defendant in any form (1 January 2020 to date of order). One-to-one communications between individual Defendants and the 1st Defendant — whether by WhatsApp, voice recording or email — are directly relevant to establishing the bilateral relationships underpinning the conspiracy and each Defendant's awareness of and participation in the scheme. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 7 — Communications between the Defendants and agents recruited by them into the WA District (1 January 2020 to 28 February 2024). The Plaintiffs allege that the Fraudulent Scheme was propagated through the recruitment of further agents. Communications between existing Defendants and recruited agents are probative of the scope of the scheme and of each Defendant's role in its dissemination. This Court finds this category strictly necessary.

Category 8 — Communications between the 17th Defendant, Cheng Jian Hong, and potential recruits encountered on 5 July

This category is specifically targeted at a named individual on a specific date. It is clearly identified and non-speculative. This Court finds this category strictly necessary to determine whether the 17th Defendant was actively recruiting on the date alleged.

Category 9 — Credit and debit card statements for the 1st to 82nd Defendants. This is the most intrusive category and demands the most careful consideration. The Plaintiffs' central factual allegation is that the Defendants used their own credit or debit cards to pay insurance and takaful premiums on behalf of non-genuine customers. The credit and debit card statements are the primary documentary evidence of whether those payments were made. Without this evidence, the Plaintiffs cannot establish the financial foundation of the fraud alleged. No less intrusive means of obtaining equivalent evidence has been identified. In M Wealth Corridor Sdn Bhd v BJ Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [9 MLJ 721], the court recognised that financial records showing the receipt and disposal of specific funds are properly the subject of a discovery order in fraud proceedings. This Court finds this category strictly necessary. Issue (ii): Whether the Application is a Fishing Expedition 49. This Court rejects the submission that Enclosure 404 constitutes a fishing expedition.

The hallmark of a fishing expedition is an application that fails to identify documents with reasonable precision and is designed to explore whether a cause of action exists. The present application is of an entirely different character. The Plaintiffs have, in Annexure A, specified the categories of documents by reference to: (a) the particular mode of communication (WhatsApp, email, voice recording); (b) the specific parties to the communications (WA District members inter se, each Defendant with the 1st Defendant, each Defendant with recruited agents, the 17th Defendant with specific recruits); (c) the specific subject matter (training, bonus calculations, signed agreements); and (d) the particular time periods applicable to each category.

The Defendants' characterisation of the categories as "catch-all" is, with respect, overstated. The use of the phrase "all records" within defined time periods and defined subject matter parameters is not a blanket trawl. It reflects the Plaintiffs' legitimate requirement for the full universe of documents within identified parameters, rather than a curated selection which — in a case of alleged fraud — the Defendants could manipulate through selective disclosure.

The circumstances of this litigation further fortify this conclusion. This is a case of alleged coordinated fraud involving 83 Defendants, multiple modes of communication and a scheme that unfolded over approximately four years. In such circumstances, broad but defined categories of documents are necessary and proportionate. The alternative — restricting discovery to narrowly identified individual documents — would render the exercise ineffective and would allow alleged perpetrators of a fraud to frustrate legitimate disclosure on the ground that the alleged scheme was too widespread. This Court declines to sanction such an outcome. The authority of Ewe Khay Guan v Chin Oi Khiun supports this analysis. The application is not a fishing expedition. Issue (iii): Possession, Custody or Power — The Individual Affidavits 53. As a general position, this Court is satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the documents in Annexure A exist and are or have been in the Defendants' possession, custody or power. The "WA - Core Team" WhatsApp group was an active group of which the Defendants were members. Training was conducted through a dedicated portal. Bonus calculations were distributed to agents. These are grounded assertions, not bare assumptions.

The Defendants' general contention that many documents originated from the Plaintiffs' own systems and are no longer accessible to them does not defeat the application. Order 24 Rule 3(1) captures documents that are "or have at any time been" in the party's possession, custody or power. Accordingly, the obligation to disclose extends to documents formerly held, together with a full account of when they were parted with and what became of them.

This Court turns to the individual affidavit of the 51st Defendant. She deposes that she left the WA District WhatsApp group many years before the commencement of proceedings and is unable to retrieve past communications. This evidence has been carefully considered.

The 51st Defendant's affidavit, while accepted as a sincere account of her present situation, does not extinguish her disclosure obligations. The critical question is not whether she can presently access the WhatsApp group, but whether the communications were at any time in her possession. Messages delivered to a mobile device through a WhatsApp group remain on that device unless actively deleted. The 51st Defendant has not specifically deposed that she deleted all WA District group communications from her devices, nor has she provided any account of what became of them. Furthermore, her obligation extends to documents in her "power" — a concept that encompasses documents she could obtain on demand, such as bank and credit card statements from her financial institutions.

Accordingly, the 51st Defendant's affidavit does not exempt her from the disclosure order in respect of Categories 1, 6, 7 and 9. The appropriate course is for her to comply with the order and to provide a full account of what she has, what she no longer has, and the circumstances in which she ceased to have it. The adequacy of that account can be assessed in the event that issues of contempt or non-compliance arise.

This Court turns to the individual affidavit of the 52nd Defendant. She deposes that there is no factual nexus connecting her to the communications or documents sought and that she was not involved in the alleged Fraudulent Scheme. This is, in substance, a denial of liability framed as a discovery objection.

This Court does not regard a denial of substantive involvement as a sufficient basis to resist discovery. The question at the discovery stage is not whether the Defendant is in fact guilty of the misconduct alleged; it is whether there exist documents relevant to the allegations made against her. If the 52nd Defendant was an agent of the Plaintiffs within the WA District during the relevant period, then Categories 1, 2, 5 and 9 are prima facie relevant to the allegations made against her, regardless of the truth of those allegations. Her denial of involvement is a matter for trial, not for determination at the interlocutory stage.

The 52nd Defendant's further submission that the application is speculative and designed to build a case against her that has not yet been substantiated reflects a misapprehension of the function of pre-trial discovery. Discovery exists precisely to enable a party to establish at trial what it has pleaded. It is not confined to cases where the applicant has already secured proof of its claims. To hold otherwise would deprive the discovery process of its fundamental utility. Issue (iv): The Unpleaded Case Argument 61. The 1st Defendant and 35 others argue that since the Statement of Claim does not expressly plead that the conspiracy was communicated or coordinated through WhatsApp or electronic messaging, discovery of electronic communications goes beyond the pleaded case.

This Court rejects this submission. Discovery is not confined to documents expressly mentioned in the pleadings. Order 24 Rule 3(1) extends to documents relating to any "matter in question in the cause or matter." A matter is "in question" if it is of consequence in determining the action, whether or not it is expressly pleaded as such. The question of how the Fraudulent Scheme was orchestrated and communicated is necessarily a matter in question in an action pleading conspiracy. How the alleged conspirators communicated — whether by WhatsApp, email, voice message or otherwise — goes to the very heart of the conspiracy charge. The mode of communication need not be expressly pleaded for documents evidencing that communication to be discoverable: N2N Connect Bhd & Ors v Chua Tiong Hoong & Ors [4 MLRA 720] and Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Co Ltd & Anor [10 MLJ 213] support this proposition.

Moreover, it is common ground that the Defendants and the 1st Defendant were in regular communication as part of the WA District agency structure. It would be artificial to hold that communications within that structure — in whatever form — are beyond the reach of discovery in a case that turns on whether those communications evidenced a fraudulent arrangement. This submission fails. Issue (v): Whether the Application Shifts the Burden of Proof 64. The 74th Defendant and 13 others, relying on Kenwood Electronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v People's Audio Sdn Bhd & Ors [5 CLJ 436], argue that compelling production of these documents would impermissibly shift the legal burden of proving the conspiracy from the Plaintiffs to the Defendants.

This Court rejects this submission. The legal burden of proving the conspiracy to injure by unlawful means rests throughout the trial with the Plaintiffs, upon the balance of probabilities. A discovery order does not transfer that burden. Discovery orders the production of documents for inspection; the trial court then draws such inferences from those documents as the evidence justifies, applying the correct standard and the correct allocation of the legal burden. These are two entirely distinct operations.

The Defendants' submission confuses the burden of proof with the forensic advantage that discovery may confer upon an applicant. All discovery, by its nature, may assist the party obtaining it. That incidental advantage does not render discovery an impermissible shift of the burden. Kenwood Electronics does not stand for the broad proposition that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents that may tend to contradict its own position in civil proceedings; it stands for the narrower proposition that discovery should not be ordered where its sole purpose is to require the opposing party to construct the entire case of the applicant. That is not the position here. The Plaintiffs have a fully pleaded case, supported by their internal investigation findings, and are seeking documentary disclosure to establish specific factual allegations at trial. This submission is rejected. Issue (vi): Confidentiality and Privacy 67. The Defendants argue that compelling production of personal WhatsApp communications, emails and credit or debit card statements constitutes an unjustified intrusion into their private affairs, and that confidentiality should shield these documents from disclosure.

This Court rejects this submission. Confidentiality, by itself, is not a valid ground to resist an order for discovery. Where the interests of justice require that documents be produced — as they clearly do in a case of alleged systematic insurance fraud of the scale pleaded — the court will order production notwithstanding any private interest in confidentiality.

The credit and debit card statements are not sought for disproportionate or oppressive purposes. They are sought because the Plaintiffs' central factual allegation — that premiums were paid using the Defendants' own credit or debit facilities — can only be established or refuted by reference to those statements. The degree of intrusion into privacy that production entails is proportionate to and justified by the gravity of the fraud alleged and the centrality of that evidence to the Plaintiffs' case. The documents will, moreover, be produced into court proceedings governed by rules of confidentiality and restricted use, and will not be exposed to general public dissemination. Issue (vii): Delay 70. The Defendants argue that the application, filed more than 700 days after suspension or termination, constitutes an oppressive afterthought.

This Court does not accept that delay in filing a discovery application, without more, renders it oppressive or an abuse of process. The test under Order 24 Rule 8 is whether discovery is necessary; that test is applied as at the date of the application, not by reference to the date of termination. The Defendants have not established that they have been prejudiced in their ability to defend this action by the timing of Enclosure 404.

The further argument — that the Plaintiffs' prior internal investigation must have yielded sufficient evidence, rendering further discovery unnecessary — does not follow. An internal investigation may have produced evidence sufficient to justify termination under the terms of the Agency Contract. It does not follow that the same evidence is sufficient to prove fraud to the civil standard of proof at trial, which is the balance of probabilities, not the contractual standard governing termination. The Plaintiffs are entitled to seek the best evidence available for trial, and discovery is the mechanism by which they do so. The timing of this application, viewed against the complexities of multi-party litigation involving 83 Defendants, does not reach the threshold of oppression. This submission is rejected. Issue (viii): Legal Basis for Consequence of Non-Compliance 73. The power to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim of any Defendant who fails to comply with this order is expressly conferred by Order 24 Rule 16(1) of the ROC 2012. This Court makes no further observation on this point save to record that the power is well-established and that its exercise in appropriate circumstances has consistently been approved by the superior courts. Any Defendant who fails to comply with this order does so at the risk of that consequence.

For the reasons set out above, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have discharged their burden under Order 24 Rule 8 of the ROC 2012. Each of the nine categories of documents in Annexure A to Enclosure 404 is strictly necessary for the fair disposal of these proceedings. The application is allowed in its entirety.

This Court accordingly makes the following orders:

The Defendants shall, within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, make and file an affidavit deposing whether the documents and information specified in Annexure A to Enclosure 404 are, or at any time have been, in their respective possession, custody or power, and if not, when they parted with such documents and what has become of them.

(ii) The Defendants shall, within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, produce to this Court and serve on the Plaintiffs' solicitors all documents and information specified in Annexure A to Enclosure 404 that are within their respective possession, custody or power.

(iii) In the event that any Defendant fails to comply with this Order, the Defence and Counterclaim (where applicable) of that Defendant shall be struck out pursuant to Order 24 Rule 16(1) of the ROC 2012, with judgment to be entered for the Plaintiffs accordingly.

(iv) Costs of and incidental to this application shall be costs in the cause. VIII. APPRECIATION

This Court records its appreciation to all learned counsel for the quality of their written and oral submissions. The arguments on both sides were advanced with commendable industry and were of material assistance to this Court in resolving the issues. Dated 22hb April 2026 (MOHAMAD REDZUAN BIN IDRUS) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT NCC 5 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs Counsel: Siva Kumar Kanagasabai & Erica Wong (Halim Hong & Quek) For the Defendant Counsel D18, D60: Wong Kok Yih, Raihanah Mahira (Gary Wong & Co. Kuala Lumpur) For the Defendant Counsel D11, 13, 16, 20, 21, 26, 47, 50, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69, 74: Low Choo Hung (Song Yan & Tang Johor Bahru) Advocates & Solicitors For the Defendant Counsel D51: Alvin Lim Hwa Yee (Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi Johor Bharu) For the Defendant Counsel D52: Cheong Yuan Rong (Yuan Law Chambers Kuala Lumpur) For the Defendant Counsel D71: Lee Jia Fu (Lee Jia Fu & Co.) For the Defendant Counsel D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D8, D9, D10, D12, D17, D22, D31, D32, D33, D34, D35, D37, D39, D40, D44, D46, D49, D53, D57, D58, D59, D65, D67, D68, D70, D72, D75, D78, D82, D83 : Lim Pang Kiat ( Ahnaf Zaimi & Co. Kemaman) For the Defendant Counsel D48, D80, D77, D28, D42: Nur Azimul Azami (The Chambers of Azimul Azami, Petaling jaya) For the Defendant Counsel D7, D14, D15, D19, D23, D24, D27, D29, D30, D38, D41, D43, D45, D54, D55, D76, D81: Soffian Azmir (Ahnaf Zaimi & Co. Kemaman) List Of Cases Referred To In This Judgment: Cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs:

M Wealth Corridor Sdn Bhd v BJ Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [9 MLJ 721]

Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Co Ltd & Anor [10 MLJ 213]

N2N Connect Bhd & Ors v Chua Tiong Hoong & Ors [4 MLRA 720]

Ewe Khay Guan v Chin Oi Khiun [12 MLJ 893]

Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd & Ors [11 MLJ 729] Cases relied upon by the Defendants:

Tanjung Rhu Land Sdn Bhd & Ors v Kauthar Venture Capital Sdn

Bhd [MLJU 964; 1 LNS 768]

Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [2 CLJ 581] Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd &

Ors [1 LNS 1252] Nguang Chan aka Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v Hai-O

Enterprise Bhd & Ors [5 MLJ 40] Kenwood Electronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v People's Audio Sdn

Rules of Court 2012

Order 24 Rule 3 — Disclosure of documents on application

Order 24 Rule 5 — Production of documents

Order 24 Rule 7 — Order for discovery

Order 24 Rule 8 — Restriction on discovery — necessity test Order 24 Rule 16 — Consequence of failure to comply with discovery order