Blackspace Sdn Bhd v Mitchell Wong Pou Yee (BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024)

MITCHELL WONG POU YEE

CHENG WEE WEE

LIM EE LING

SOH EE FAN (NO. K/P: 820710-01-5455) (Berniaga sebagai rakan Kongsi INTERSPARK DESIGN & BUILD ENTERPRISE) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 29/04/2025 14:39:10 BA-22NCvC-329-08/2024 Kand. 48 S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an application by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 9 for discovery of documents against the Defendants pursuant to Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiff’s main claims against the Defendants are for, inter alia, breaches of fiduciary duties, breaches of terms of employment contracts, misuse of confidential information, conspiracy to injure and unlawful interference with trade. The Prevailing Issue [2] The central issue in this application is whether the circumstances warrant this Court's exercise of discretion to grant an order for discovery. [3] In dealing with this key issue, a number of subsidiary issues emerge, and these include questions such as: • Whether the Defendant has possession of the Requested Documents; • Whether the Requested Documents are relevant to the facts in issue of this case; • Whether such an order is necessary for the fair disposal of the matter; and S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q • Whether the Requested Documents are too wide and amount to a fishing expedition. The Documents Sought [4] The documents sought by the Plaintiff are as follows:

Penyata Bank D1 dan D2:

Penyata bank peribadi yang tidak dihitamkan bagi semua akaun kewangan peribadi di bawah nama D1 dan D2, meliputi tempoh dari penubuhan INTERSPARK pada 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh peletakan jawatan mereka:

D1: Peletakan jawatan berkuat kuasa pada 30.04.2024.

(ii) D2: Peletakan jawatan berkuat kuasa pada 31.03.2024.

Akaun Pengurusan: Akaun pengurusan lengkap untuk INTERSPARK bagi tempoh dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada:

Lembaran Imbangan (Balance Sheet); S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q

Penyata Untung Rugi (Profit & Loss Statements);

Ledjar Am (General Ledger);

Penyata Aliran Tunai (Cash Flow Statement);

Penyata Penyesuaian Bank (Bank Reconciliation

Rekod Hutang Piutang (Accounts Payable & Receivable

Penyata akaun bank yang tidak dihitamkan dari semua bank yang digunakan oleh INTERSPARK dari 31.03.2023 hingga tarikh pemfailan ini, termasuk semua penyata akaun yang menunjukkan transaksi perniagaan, penerimaan, pembayaran dan pemindahan dana kepada dan daripada pembekal, pelanggan, dan subkontraktornya, antara lain.

Penyata cukai yang difailkan kepada LHDN (Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri) dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan ini, termasuk penyata pendapatan, perbelanjaan, dan butiran pampasan yang berkaitan dengan INTERSPARK;

Penyata kad kredit peribadi yang tidak dihitamkan untuk D1, D2, D3, dan D4, hanya setakat mana kad-kad ini digunakan untuk perbelanjaan yang berkaitan dengan S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q urus niaga perniagaan atau pampasan kewangan yang melibatkan INTERSPARK, dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini.

Laporan Jejak Audit daripada Sistem ‘Auto Count’ bagi tempoh bermula dari tarikh pemasangan sistem, dan sekiranya pemasangan berlaku selepas 31.03.2023, dari 31.03.2023 hingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini. Laporan ini hendaklah termasuk semua data berkaitan:

Akaun Penghutang (Accounts Receivable - A/R): Laporan jejak audit terperinci untuk semua transaksi yang direkodkan di bawah modul Akaun Penghutang dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan, termasuk invois pelanggan, resit pembayaran, nota kredit, dan sebarang penyesuaian yang dibuat.

Transaksi Jualan: Laporan komprehensif untuk semua transaksi jualan yang dimasukkan ke dalam sistem, termasuk invois yang dikeluarkan, pemulangan jualan, dan diskaun yang diberikan. Jejak audit perlu menunjukkan pengguna yang bertanggungjawab ke atas setiap transaksi, bersama dengan cap waktu (time stamp) bagi penciptaan, pengubahsuaian, dan/atau penghapusan rekod tersebut, serta butiran sebarang penyesuaian yang dibuat terhadap angka jualan. S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q

Stok - Senarai Stok dan Pergerakan Stok (Stock Listing & Stock Movement): Jejak audit penuh yang memperincikan pergerakan item stok, termasuk transaksi stok masuk dan stok keluar, pemindahan stok, dan sebarang penyesuaian stok yang dibuat. Laporan ini harus merangkumi pecahan mengikut item stok (bersama kod stok), kuantiti yang terlibat, dan pengguna yang bertanggungjawab ke atas setiap transaksi. Selain itu, laporan ini juga perlu meliputi senarai stok dalam tempoh yang dinyatakan, menunjukkan baki awal stok, tahap stok, dan sebarang perubahan yang dibuat sepanjang tempoh yang ditetapkan.

Perjanjian Perkongsian INTERSPARK: Salinan sernua Perjanjian Perkongsian INTERSPARK dan/atau Perjanjian Usaha Sama (‘JV Agreement”) INTERSPARK dan/atau Perjanjian Pembahagian Keuntungan INTERSPARK (“Profit Sharing Agreement’) antara D1, D2, D3, dan D4 berkaitan dengan pemilikan, operasi, dan pengurusan INTERSPARK, dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini.

Semua komunikasi antara Defendan-Defendan bagi tempoh bermula dari tarikh SEBELUM penubuhan INTERSPARK dan, DARI 31.03.2023, dan BERTERUSAN S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini yang termasuk:- Emel, surat-menyurat, atau mesej elektronik seperti mesej WhatsApp, di antara Defendan Pertama, Defendan Kedua, Defendan Ketiga, dan Defendan Keempat berhubung/berkaitan dengan penubuhan, operasi dan/atau pengurusan INTERSPARK.

Kontrak Pelanggan (“Customer Contracts”), Sebut Harga (“Quotation”), dan Hubungan Perniagaan: Salinan semua senarai pelanggan INTERSPARK, kontrak pelanggan, dan/atau sebut harga yang dikeluarkan dan dimeterai oleh INTERSPARK bagi tempoh dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada:

Kontrak dan/atau sebut harga pertama yang dimeterai oleh INTERSPARK dengan pelanggan pertamanya pada 28.03.2024, sebagaimana yang telah diakui (“as pleaded and admitted”), beserta dokumen sokongan seperti invois, sebut harga, pesanan pembelian, atau dokumen lain yang relevan;

Senarai lengkap pelanggan INTERSPARK yang mengenal pasti setiap pelanggan yang berkontrak dengan INTERSPARK, termasuk maklumat hubungan (contact details) dan butiran berkaitan sifat hubungan S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q perniagaan antara INTERSPARK dan pelanggan tersebut;

Butiran mengenai sebarang perniagaan berulang (recurring business) atau kewajipan kontrak yang berterusan oleh INTERSPARK dengan pelanggan, termasuk sebarang pindaan atau pengubahsuaian kepada perjanjian asal.

Kontrak Pembekal (“Supplier Contracts”), Perjanjian Perniagaan, dan Sebut Harga (“Quotation”): Salinan semua kontrak, perjanjian, dan/atau sebut harga yang dimeterai oleh INTERSPARK dengan pembekal dan/atau vendor dari 31.03.2023 sehingga tarikh pemfailan Permohonan Penzahiran ini, termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada:

Senarai lengkap pembekal dan/atau vendor yang telah berkontrak dengan INTERSPARK, termasuk maklumat hubungan dan butiran syarikat;

Butiran bahan dan/atau perkhidmatan yang dibekalkan oleh setiap pembekal, termasuk jenis bahan dan/atau perkhidmatan yang berkaitan dengan industri rekabentuk dalaman dan pembinaan; S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q

Perjanjian harga, termasuk kadar yang dipersetujui, diskaun, terma pembayaran, dan sebarang terma tambahan;

Jadual penghantaran atau garis masa yang dipersetujui bagi pembekalan bahan dan/atau perkhidmatan. [5] It is evident from the preceding paragraph that the documents sought include financial records, internal communications, and/or operational data related to Interspark Design and Build Enterprise, a partnership comprising of all the Defendants as partners. The Case for the Plaintiff [6] According to the Plaintiff, the documents listed in paragraph [4] are critical to substantiating its claims. [7] It was further averred that these documents would lead the Plaintiff to a "train of inquiry" which would have either directly and/or indirectly enable it to advance its own case or to damage the Defendants' case against them. Hence, it was contended by the Plaintiff that the requested documents are necessary to prove the Plaintiff’s allegations and to enable the fair and efficient resolution of this matter. [8] The Plaintiff submitted that it has satisfied all the requirements under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012 to justify this discovery application. S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q The Defendants’ Case [9] The Defendant’s main contentions in resisting this application for discovery may be summed up as follows. • That the Plaintiff has failed to define the “confidential information” alleged to have been misused; • That the timeframe for the documents sought is overly broad and not supported by the pleadings; • That the documents sought are irrelevant and unnecessary, particularly personal financial records; • That the Plaintiff’s discovery application constitutes a fishing expedition; • That the Plaintiff’s discovery application is premature and seeks to shift the burden of proof onto the Defendants; • That the documents sought include confidential and sensitive data, such as tax records; and • That the Plaintiff already possesses or controls the relevant information, rendering discovery unnecessary. S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q The Law and the Applicable Principles [10] Order 24 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as follows: Order for discovery (O. 24, r. 3)

3.

Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rules 4 and 8, the Court may at any time order any party to a cause or matter (whether begun by writ, originating summons or otherwise) to give discovery by making and serving on any other party a list of the documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power and may at the same time or subsequently also order him to make and file an affidavit verifying such a list and to serve a copy thereof on the other party.

(There is no paragraph (2)).

(There is no paragraph (3)).

The documents which a party to a cause or matter may be ordered to discover under paragraph (1) are as follows:

the documents on which the party relies or will rely; and

the documents which could — S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q

adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case. [11] Order 24 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 further states as follows: Discovery to be ordered only if necessary (O. 24, r. 8)

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. [12] As noted by the High Court in Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [1994] 2 CLJ 581; [1993] MLJU 96; [1993] 4 MLRH 380: The essential elements for an order for discovery are threefold; namely, first there must be a "document", secondly, the document must be "relevant" and thirdly, the document must be or have been in the "possession, custody or power" of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought. S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q The Decision of this Court [13] In considering the present application, this Court has borne in mind the following facts, namely, that the First Defendant was the Business Development Manager of the Plaintiff and is one of the partners of Interspark Design and Build Enterprise; the Second Defendant was its Sales Executive and also a partner of Interspark Design and Build Enterprise; the Third Defendant is one of the directors of a company that has been appointed to carry out works for the Plaintiff as the latter’s Sub-Contractor; and the Fourth Defendant is one of the partners of Interspark Design and Build Enterprise. [14] In addition to the above, this Court has also taken into account the following pertinent facts, namely that:

The First Defendant and the Second Defendant were employed by the Plaintiff until 30 April, 2024 and 31 March, 2024, respectively;

The Defendants admitted that the First Defendant “incorporated” Interspark Design and Build Enterprise on 31 March, 2023, while still employed by the Plaintiff;

Interspark Design and Build Enterprise operates in the same industry as the Plaintiff, providing interior design and build;

The Defendants confirmed that the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants , joined Interspark Design and Build Enterprise as partners on 4 March, 2024; S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q

Interspark Design and Build Enterprise secured its first client on 28 March, 2024, prior to the First and Second Defendants’ resignations from the Plaintiff’s employment;

The First and Second Defendants, by virtue of their employment, had direct and/or ready access to the Plaintiff’s confidential business data, including client lists, supplier agreements, and pricing structures, while employed by the

The First and Second Defendants admitted that they had ‘password-protected access’ to the Plaintiff’s proprietary and business information; and

The Third Defendant admitted to having a longstanding business relationship with the Plaintiff since 2021, during which business information was regularly shared. [15] On the issue of whether the Defendant has possession of the documents, this Court answers the question in the affirmative. [16] As to the issue of whether the requested documents are relevant to the facts in issue of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the answer is in the affirmative. As observed in Manilal & Sons (Pte) Ltd v Bhupendra KJ Shan (t/a JB International) [1981] CLJU 204; [1990] 2 MLJ 282; [1981] 1 MLRH 584: S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q Under a general order of court for discovery, a party is obliged to make discovery of all documents relevant to the matters in question in the action. What are the matters in question would depend on the pleadings. A document relates to the matter in question in the action if it contains information which may — not which must — either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the discovery either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary or which may fairly lead to a train of inquiry which may have either of those two consequences: see Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55 at p 62. Documents relate to matters in question in the action so long as they are likely to throw light on the case: see Merchants’ & Manufacturers’ Insurance Co Ltd v Davies [1938] 1 KB 196 at p 210. [17] This Court has reviewed the pleadings in the main action and is satisfied that the documents identified in paragraph [4] contain information that may, directly or indirectly, assist the Plaintiff in advancing its case or undermining the Defendants’ case. Alternatively, these documents may reasonably lead to a line of inquiry that could yield either of these outcomes, as established in the seminal case of Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55. [18] With regard to whether a discovery order is necessary for the fair disposal of this matter, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff’s discovery application is essential to resolving the core issues in the main action, namely:

whether the First and Second Defendants, while employed by the Plaintiff, diverted clients and misused confidential S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q information for the benefit of Interspark Design and Build

whether the Defendants exploited proprietary data, including client lists, supplier information, and pricing strategies, to gain an unfair competitive advantage;

whether the Defendants coordinated their actions to establish and operate Interspark Design and Build Enterprise as a competing business, thereby harming the Plaintiff’s trade interests; and

whether the Defendants’ actions disrupted the Plaintiff’s operations and diverted business opportunities to Interspark Design and Build Enterprise. [19] This Court finds that the documents sought are crucial in substantiating the Plaintiff’s claims and resolving the factual disputes at hand. [20] In relation to the Defendants’ contention that the documents sought are too wide and amount to a fishing expedition, this Court has carefully considered this ground and come to the conclusion that the documents sought have been described with reasonable precision. The are ample authorities to support the proposition that once the documents sought have been described with reasonable precision, they cannot be said to constitute a fishing expedition. (See Kuah Kok Kim and others v Ernst & Young [1996] 3 SLR 485; Lim Keong Yew & Anor v Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay & Anor [2017] 1 LNS 1791; [2017] MLRHU 1220; Mah Sau Cheong v Tan S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q Eng Chin [2019] AMEJ 0343; [2019] CLJU 560; [2019] MLJU 1348; [2019] MLRHU 377 and IDB Interactive Sdn Bhd v Online E-Club Management Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] AMEJ 0600; [2019] CLJU 859; [2020] 7 MLJ 349; [2019] MLRHU 557. [21] In view of the above findings, this Court allows the application in Enclosure 9 with costs in the cause. Dated: 25 April, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Jonathan Khaw Chern Wei for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Chern & Co.) Sumathi Shanmugam for the Defendants (Messrs. The Chambers of Sumathi) S/N noYDiGNbBkSijvqzq8b6Q