(i)(2), (i)(4), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(7.1), (i)(7.2), (i)(7.3), 8, 9, 10, 11 to 12.2 with 8 adjustments for discovery of those documents to be discovered only for 9 the current year and/or restricted to the years from 2020 until todate. 10 11 [4] I dismissed Prayers (i)(1), (i)(3), (ii)(13) to (15). 12 13 [5] The RH is aggrieved and has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal 14 against the said decision. 15 16 [6] The following are the grounds for my decision. 17 18 Background of the Case 19 [7] The PW and RH were legally married on 3.4.1999. There are two 20 children of the marriage, both of whom are above the age of majority. 21 22 [8] In June 2022 after 23 years of marriage the PW filed a petition for 23 divorce claiming the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the 24 RH’s alleged adulterous relationship with the Co-Respondent and thereby 25 abandoned her and the children of the marriage. 26 27 [9] Through the Divorce Petition the PW sought a number of reliefs inter 28 alia for the RH to bear the costs of education and expenses for both the 29 children of the marriage until their first degree, spousal maintenance as 30 well as for division of the matrimonial assets. 31 S/N wmSanYrGFEiXlmTsAy0nAg [10] In response the RH has filed a cross-petition in May 2023 presenting 1 his grounds for divorce and his own reliefs pursuant to the dissolution of 2 the marriage. 3 4 [11] On 10.7.2023 the PW via Enclosure 32 filed an application for 5 discovery pertaining to the RH’s financial standing and ownership of 6 assets. The RH reciprocated with the instant application seeking similar 7 reliefs. 8 9 Contentions and Findings 10 [12] To reiterate it will be pertinent to note that the PW herself had 11 applied for discovery of documents against the RH through Encl 32. The 12 RH’s immediate response was to agree to the PW’s application with the 13 condition that the PW shall also give discovery of documents he 14 requested. 15 16 [13] The RH’s justification was simply that it is illogical for the PW to ask 17 for those documents claiming that they are necessary to be discovered of 18 the RH, but in the same breath to refuse to provide documents of similar 19 nature herself by accusing the RH of going on a fishing expedition. When 20 the PW refused to meet the RH’s request he felt compelled to commence 21 Encl 34 on 29.8.2023. 22 23 [14] The PW’s brief reasons for refusing the RH’s request is put down to 24 the fact that the RH’s main intention to seek discovery is nothing but a 25 ploy to fish for information and to tie up loose ends in his own narrative 26 and pleading. The PW contended that the RH presented distorted 27 narratives and untruthful averments to cover up the fact that he had failed 28 to plead necessary facts leaving gaps in the pleadings and averments as 29 well as his lack of full and frank disclosure of his income and assets. The 30 S/N wmSanYrGFEiXlmTsAy0nAg PW urged the Court to make an adverse inference against the RH in 1 respect of the PW’s claim for maintenance and for the division of 2 matrimonial property. 3 4 [15] The RH’s application for discovery is made pursuant to Order 24 5 rule 3, 7 and 13 of the ROC 2012. 6 7 [16] The law relating to discovery is well settled. In the leading case of 8 Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 9 581 Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ (as he then was) set out the threefold test for 10 granting an order for discovery. The 3 essential elements that must be 11 met are firstly there must be a ‘document’, secondly the documents must 12 be ‘relevant’ and lastly the documents must be or have been in the 13 possession, custody or control of the party from whom discovery is 14 sought. 15 16 [17] It is trite that an application for discovery will only be allowed for 17 documents that are relevant to the case. In order for the documents to be 18 relevant the RH must be able to demonstrate that the documents sought 19 would advance his case or damage the PW’s case. 20 21 [18] In the case of Manilal & Sons (Pte) Ltd v Bhupendra KJ Shan (t/a 22 JB International) [1981] 1 LNS 204 the Court explained as follows: 23 24 "Under a general order of court for discovery, a party is obliged to make 25 discovery of all documents relevant to the matters in question in the 26 action. What are the matters in question would depend on the pleadings. 27 A document relates to the matter in question in the action if it contains 28 information which may – not which must – either directly or indirectly 29 enable the party requiring the discovery either to advance his own case 30 or to damage the case of his adversary or which may fairly lead to a train 31 S/N wmSanYrGFEiXlmTsAy0nAg of inquiry which may have either of those two consequences: see 1 Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacified v. Peruvian Guano 2 Co [1882] 11 QBD 55 at p 62." 3 4 [19] In furtherance to the above principles, the RH must also pass the 5 test of necessity. If the Court is satisfied that discovery of those 6 documents is not necessary then it shall refuse such an application. In 7 Nguang Chan aka Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v Hai-O 8 Enterprise Bhd & Ors [2009] 5 MLJ 40 it was held that: 9 10 “if necessity is not the prime concern of the court, allowing discovery 11 would tantamount to allowing the respondents to fish for evidence which 12 defeats the purpose of the rule by causing the appellants to suffer unfair 13 disadvantage id they fail to comply with an order which is oppressive 14 and incapable of compliance.” 15 16 [20] The key reliefs sought by the PW in her Divorce Petition dated 17 21.6.2022 was for the RH to pay for the costs of education and expenses 18 for both the children of the marriage until they achieve their university 19 degree, for wife maintenance as well as for the division of their 20 matrimonial assets. 21 22 Applying the Law to Items 1, 13 and 15 of Schedule A 23 [21] I have refused Items 1, 13 and 15 of Schedule A of the RH’s list of 24 documents for discovery as clearly these are the RH’s not so subtle 25 attempts at fishing for information to see if there is anything that he can 26 obtain from the PW to be used against her. 27 28 [22] In regard to the request for the documents in Item 1, I am of the view 29 that the description is too general and vaguely framed. The discovery 30 sought is for “pay slips and all documents relating to payments made, 31 S/N wmSanYrGFEiXlmTsAy0nAg payable and benefits entitled by her, including bonuses, commissions, 1 allowances or other remuneration.” The categories are too wide and its 2 existence has not been specified. The RH has left out the specific details 3 regarding those documents that he wants the PW to disclose. He had 4 basically thrown the sink at her. This leads me to the inference that the 5 application is not bona fide, oppressive and is a reactive tit for tat situation. 6 7 [23] I am in agreement with the PW’s contention that the discovery 8 sought for these items do not identify the actual documents pertaining to 9 the assets and means of income of the PW and how it relates to the issue 10 at hand. I am of the view that the discovery sought has to be with a 11 purpose whereas here the RH has pleaded to furnish all documents 12 pertaining to any payments made or payable benefits to the PW without 13 specifically naming the source of which such possible payments may have 14 come from. The RH did not address the requirement of necessity but 15 merely asserted that these documents are purportedly relevant without 16 demonstrating in what way they are relevant. 17 18 [24] On this issue it is germane to note the reminder contained in the 19 case of Selve a/p Renganathan v Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathan & 20 Ors [2020] CLJU 1631 where it was stated as follows: 21 22 "[13] Similarly, the plaintiff in an application for specific discovery 23 also has to prove the specific documents sought are relevant to the 24 issue in dispute as well as necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for 25 saving costs." [Emphasis added] 26 27 [25] I further refer to the observation of the court in Nguang Chan in the 28 following paragraphs reproduced below for ease of reference: 29 30 S/N wmSanYrGFEiXlmTsAy0nAg “[9] In Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari & Ors (No 2) [1990] 2 All ER 738 at p 1 744 the English Court of Appeal held that, the natural and ordinary 2 meaning of the phrase ‘reference to’ imports the making of a direct 3 allusion to a document or documents. The absence of a direct allusion 4 to the document in the affidavit will mean that the other party will not 5 have the right to such production and inspection under O 24 r 10 (which 6 is in pari materia with our O24 r 10 of the RHC). The court rejected the 7 submission that ‘reference’ includes a ‘reference by inference’, that is, 8 where an assertion made in an affidavit or pleading gives rise to an 9 inference that the document must or might exist. 10 [12] And in considering the application the court should bear in mind the 11 words of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Taylor v Anderson [1995] 1 WLR 12 447 at p 462 that ‘the purpose of the rule is to ensure that one party does 13 not enjoy an advantage or suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation 14 as the result of a document not being produced for inspection. 15 [13] Finally the court would dismiss a plaintiff’s application for discovery 16 if it is of the view that the plaintiff was ‘merely fishing for evidence to prop 17 up his case’ and to allow him discovery would be unduly oppressive to 18 the party giving discovery…” 19 20 [26] I find that the RH in asking for discovery for Items 13 and 15 of 21