Tan Huey Zi [Bertindak Bagi Diri Sendiri Dan Bagi Pihak Pendeposit Dan Sebagai Rakan Kongsi Omg Luxury Trading (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-h)) Dan Berniaga Sebagai Hz Wealth Consultancy (No. Pendaftaran: Pg0526735x (20220308900)] v Chan Lennon [Secara Sendiri Dan Juga Berniaga Sebagai Owo Group Enterprise (No. Pendaftaran: 202303007438 (Kt0537624-h)] (BA-22NCC-31-02/2024)

ANTARA TAN HUEY ZI (No. K/P: 910626-10-5684) [bertindak bagi diri sendiri dan bagi pihak Pendeposit/Pelabur dan sebagai rakan kongsi OMG Luxury Trading [No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-H)] dan berniaga sebagai HZ Wealth Consultancy [No.

Pendaftaran: PG0526735X (20220308900)] SIM BOON HONG (No. K/P: 900602-14-1543) PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF DAN CHAN LENNON (No. K/P: 941125-10-5207) [secara sendiri dan juga berniaga sebagai OWO Group Enterprise [No. Pendaftaran: 202303007438 (KT0537624-H)] DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1] The 1st Plaintiff and the Defendant are partners of OMG Luxury Trading. The 1st Plaintiff represents 11 others who, like the Plaintiffs, claim to have transferred substantial sums of money into the bank accounts of the Defendant, his registered business or other nominees for the purchase of luxury watches and cars under an alleged investment scheme. [2] There is no such investment scheme. The Plaintiffs are suing the Defendant for deceit, fraud, conspiracy with unknown third parties, unjust enrichment, breach of trust and misappropriation of monies in the partnership account of OMG Luxury Trading as most of the RM1,433,398.00 were paid via the 1st Plaintiff personally, [3] The Defendant denies the claims. The Defendant admits receiving the monies paid to his account and that he has repaid RM274,000.00. However, t the alleged investment scheme or deposit-taking activities under the Moneylenders Act 1951 or the Financial Services Act 2013 respectively, and that the sums totaling RM274,000.00 repaid by him were interest payments. [4] On 6-1- discovery of bank account statements of the Defendant s account and those accounts to which the monies have been transferred by the Defendant. [5] to discovery was anchored solely on the argument that the documents sought to be discovered are irrelevant to the cause or matter in issue between the parties since he does not deny receiving the monies, and evidence of the money trail is irrelevant as he is entitled to do as he pleases with the borrowed monies. [6] This Court disagreed and allowed Enclosure 15. [7] Relevance is defined broadly, per Yekambaran s/ o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 ( ) citing Brett LJ from the classic authority, on the test for relevance in the context of discovery, Compaignee Financiere du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. [1882] 11 QBD 55: It seems to me that every document relates to the matters in question in the action, which not only would be evidence upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may - not which must - either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these two consequences... [8] The common law formulation of relevance is similar to that in Order 24 Rules 3 and 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, except that the discovery of relevant documents will be further subject to Order 24 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the requirement for necessity: On the hearing of an application for an order under rule 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. [9] In Yekambaran, the following passage from The Principles and Practice of Discovery by Edward Bray was also extracted and cited with approval (at page 18): particular issue (see ante, p.12, as to referring the relevancy to the matters in question and not to the case of the party seeking discovery), it is the case of the party seeking the discovery that must be assumed to be true, and not that of the party from whom the discovery is sought: see Gresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. p. 292: Cannock v. Jauncey, 1 Dr. p.506: Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (discussed post, p. 183, and where the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Pearson, J. who had refused to order the plaintiff to make a further affidavit of documents in respect of a document which was immaterial if his case were true, but material if the defendant's case were true): otherwise a party might shut out his opponent from discovery essential to support his case by simply denying that case: see Stainton v. Chadwick, 3 M. & G. p. [10] In this case, the documents requested are relevant to determine the core matter in issue i.e. the purpose of the monies transferred and the money trail for an account of the partnership account of OMG Luxury Trading. The bank statements should reveal the contemporaneous characterization of the payments and receipts and where the monies have been moved to. Such information is also relevant it is likely to lead to a train of inquiry that may advance its case and damage the [11] Considering the relevance of the documents requested, the nature of the dispute and the stark contrast between the respective pleaded stance of the parties, this Court is further of the view that discovery of the requested documents is necessary, and necessary now, both for disposing fairly of the cause and for saving costs. This is because the evidence will be brought to the fore for enhanced case assessment and preservation at the earliest possible stage. Bertarikh : 13 Januari 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam Untuk Plaintif-Plaintif : Amuthavally A/P Krishnan Nair, Tetuan A. Nair Law Firm (Klang) Untuk Defendan : Miguel Jude Sequerah, Tetuan