CHAN LENNON (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) v TAN HUEY ZI (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) (BA-12ANCC-21-08/2024)

CHAN LENNON (No. K/P: 941125-10-5207) (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-H) …PERAYU

TAN HUEY ZI (No. K/P: 910626-10-5684) (berniaga sebagai OMG LUXURY TRADING) (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-H) ...RESPONDEN [(Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Di Petaling Jaya Dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia Guaman Sivil No: BB-B52NCC-99-11/2023 Antara Lai Mei Kei (No. K/P: 790316-10-5124) ...Plaintif

Chan Lennon (No. K/P: 941125-10-5207) (Berniaga Sebagai OMG Luxury Trading) (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-H))

Tan Huey Zi (No. K/P: 910626-10-5684) (Berniaga Sebagai OMG Luxury Trading) (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-H) ...Defendan-Defendan)] JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the Appellant (D1 in the Sessions Court) against the decision of the Sessions Court on 26 July, 2024 in allowing the Respondent’s (D2 in the Sessions Court) application pursuant to Order 24 for discovery of documents (in the form of bank statements). [2] To all intents and purposes, this discovery application relates to two distinct documents. The first is the Appellant’s bank statement for November, 2022 and the second are the Appellant’s bank statements after November, 2022. The Central Issue [3] The key issue for consideration by this Court is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge had made any appealable error in exercising her discretion in allowing the Respondent’s application for discovery. The Background Facts [4] The background facts leading to the discovery application in the Sessions Court are outlined in the Appellant’s Written Submissions as follows:

On 07.11.2023, the Plaintiff brought a claim in case No: BB-B52NCC-99-11/2023 against the Appellant and the Respondent as partners of OMG Luxury Trading ("OMG Company"). The Plaintiff alleged, among others, that on or around November 2022 OMG Luxury Trading company through the Respondent had contacted the Plaintiff for trading of branded watches ("Luxury Watch Trading") where the Plaintiff had paid a sum of RM 73,000.00 to the account of OMG Luxury trading company whereby according to the Plaintiff, the sale price of RM 320,000.00 is to be paid back to the Plaintiff.

In the defence of the Appellant filed on 04.01.2024, the Appellant pleads, among other things, that he is not involved in the above said trade between the Plaintiff and the Respondents and if there is any agreement (which is denied) it is between the Plaintiff and the Respondent considering that it is the Respondent who contacted the Plaintiff for the trade of the watches. In addition, the Appellant also pleaded that it is an illegal money lending agreement.

In the Respondent's defence filed on 19.02.2024, the Respondent has among other things put the blame on the Appellant.

The Respondent then filed a Notice of Application [Tab 13 Record of Appeal] dated 28.05.2024 with an affidavit in support affirmed on 27.05.2024 requesting for the discovery of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 1 above from the Appellant. The Parties’ Contentions [5] The contentions advanced by the parties have been outlined by the learned Sessions Court Judge in her grounds of judgment. For ease of reference, the Respondent’s submissions at the court below were summed up by the learned Sessions Court Judge as follows: [2] Alasan permohonan Plaintif adalah dinyatakan dalam affidavit sokongan yang mana antara lain menyatakan bahawa: 1) Melalui penafian Defendan Pertama dalam Jawapan Plaintif Pembelaan Defendan Pertama kepada Pembelaan Defendan Kedua bertarikh 9/5/2024, adalah jelas bahawa Defendan Pertama menafikan bahawa wang yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun OMG Luxury Trading (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai OMG), tidak dipindahkan ke akaun peribadi milik Defendan Pertama dan ini bertentangan dengan penyataan Defendan Kedua yang menegaskan wang terbabit sememangnya dipindahkan ke akaun milik Defendan Pertama. Sesalinan Penyata Akaun OMG bagi bulan November iaitu OCBC No:786-127082-1 menunjukkan bahawa wang telah dipindahkan ke akaun Defendan Pertama pada 9/11/2022 dan 10/11/2022 selepas Plaintif memasukkan wang ke akaun OCBC ini. 2) Penyata Akuan Peribadi Defendan Pertama di Ambank Akaun No: 881044521579 bagi bulan November 2022 akan menunjukkan jumlah wang terbabit telah dipindahkan dari akaun OMG Luxury Trading ke Akaun Ambank milik Defendan Pertama yang mana Penyata Akaun tersebut amat penting untuk membuktikan wang yang telah dipindahkan kepada Defendan Pertama yang mana telah dinafikan oleh Defendan Pertama dan sebaliknya mendakwa digunakan untuk pinjaman wang haram. 3) Selain itu, Penyata Akaun Ambank Defendan Pertama tersebut di atas bagi bulan berlainan selepas November (jika relevan) dan/atau penyata akaun bank Defendan Pertama yang lain di mana wang terbabit dipindahkan dari akaun Ambank milik Defendan Pertama tersebut di atas juga diperlukan untuk menunjukkan pemindahan wang dan/atau bagaimana wang terbabit digunakan kerana Defendan Pertama mendakwa ianya digunakan untuik pinjaman wang haram. 4) Penzahiran dokumen-dokumen tersebut wajar kerana: a) Semua item yang dinyatakan dalam permohonan ini adalah dokumen-dakumen sahaja iaitu Penyata Bank. b) Dokumern yang dipohon tersebut memang wujud. c) Dokumen-cdokumen ini adalah dalam simpanan, milikan, jagaan, kawalan dan/atau kuasa Defendan Pertama. d) Dokumen-dokumen ini adalah relevan untuk tujuan prosiding ini. e) Defendan Kedua akan bersandar kepada Dokumen-dokumen ini. f) Dokumen-dokumen ini menyokong kes Defendan Kedua. g) Defendan Kedua hanya memohon perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama membuat atau menyampaikan senarai dokumen yang ada dan telah ada dalam milikan, kuasa dan/atau jagaannya. 5) Pada 16/5/2024, peguamcara Defendan Kedua telah menghantar surat meminta penzahiran dokumen-dokumen tersebut namun Defendan Pertama enggan dan/atau tidak mahu memberikan dokumen-dokumen tersebut. [6] The relevant part of the Appellant’s grounds to oppose the discovery application is at the following paragraph of the learned Judge’s grounds of judgment. [3] Defendan Pertama telah memfailkan affidavit jawapan yang mana antaranya menyatakan seperti berikut: 1) Defendan Kedua sebagai rakan kongsi di syarikat OMG mempunyai akses kepada akaun syarikat OMG dan Penyata bank syarikat OMG. 2) Penzahiran dokumen inl adalah satu “Fishing expedition’. Defendan Kedua ingin melihat semua dokumen peribadi dan semua transaksi akaun tersebut walaupun tidak melibatkan Defendan Kedua atau tindakan Ini. 3) Dokumen-dokumen yang dipohon adalah dokumen peribadi Defendan Pertama. Jika penzahiran dipenarkan, ia akan melanggar hak peribadi seseorang. 4) Dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak diperlukan kerana Defendan Kedua ada akses kepada dokumen-dokumen tersebut sebagai rakan kongsi di syarikat OMG. 5) Dokumen-dokumen tersebut tidak terikat/terlibat dengan tindakan Ini. 6) Beban pembuktian adalah terletak kepada Defendan Kedua di mana Defendan Kedua mempunyai obligasi untuk membuktikan bahawa wang telah dipindahkan ke akaun Defendan Pertama. 7) Penzahiran adalah terlalu luas dan melibatkan bukan setakat bulan November tetapi juga bulan berlainan selepas November. 8) Permohonan adalah tidak penting dan menindas Defendan Pertama. 9) Surat permohonan Defendan Kedua untuk penzahiran telah dijawab oleh Defendan Pertama dengan menyatakan sebab kenapa penzahiran dokumen-dokumen tersebut adalah tidak relevan dan tidak perlu. The Decision of the Sessions Court [7] As noted, the Sessions Court allowed the Respondent’s application for discovery of: • Penyata Akaun Peribadi Defendan Pertama di Ambank Akaun No. 881044521479 bagi bulan November 2022 yang menunjukkan jumlah wang terbabit telah dipindahkan dari akaun OMG Luxury Trading ke Akaun ambank milik Defendan Pertama; • Penyata Akaun Ambank tersebut di atas bagi bulan berlainan selepas bulan November (jika relevan) dan/atau Penyata Akaun lain Defendan Pertama(Perayu) dimana wang terbabit dipindahkan dari Akaun Ambank tersebut di atas untuk menunjukkan pemindahan wang dan/atau bagaimana wang terbabit digunakan; dan • Perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama hendaklah membuat dan menyampaikan senarai dokumen yang ada atau telah ada dalam milikan, kuasa dan penjagaannya dalam tempoh empat belas (14) hari. [8] The learned Sessions Court Judge made the above decision based on her findings that the discovery application has satisfied all the requirements under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Law and Applicable Principles [9] The present appeal brings into focus the provisions in Order 24 rules 3 and 8 of the Rules of Court 2012. These provisions provide 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 —

adversely affect his own case;

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

(iii) support another party’s case. 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. The Decision of this Court [10] The principles as adumbrated in Order 24 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 are unambiguous. For an order of discovery to be made, first, there must be a ‘document’, second, the document must be ‘relevant’ and third, the document must be or have been in the ‘possession, custody or power’ of the party against whom the order for discovery is sought. (See Yekambaran Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581; [1993] MLJU 96; [1993] 4 MLRH 380.) [11] The said document must be one which the party relies or will rely and it is one which could adversely affect his own case, adversely affect another party’s case or support another party’s case. [12] Order 24 rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012, to which the Appellant had relied on primarily to oppose the Appellant’s application, makes it incumbent for a court considering a discovery application to be satisfied that the document sought is “necessary at that stage of the cause or matter”. [13] Having carefully considered and examined the applicable principles, the facts of this case, the grounds relied by the parties in support of and in opposing the discovery application and the learned Sessions Court Judge’s grounds of judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the Order of the Sessions Court for the “Penyata Akaun Peribadi Defendan Pertama di Ambank Akaun No. 881044521479 bagi bulan November 2022 yang menunjukkan jumlah wang terbabit telah dipindahkan dari akaun OMG Luxury Trading ke Akaun ambank milik Defendan Pertama” is to be affirmed. [14] This Court is of the opinion that the discovery of the bank statement of November 2022 should be ordered as it satisfies the elements as laid down in Order 24 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. This Court is unable to agree with the Appellant that the bank statement of November 2022 is not necessary and/or a “fishing expedition”. [15] At the hearing of this appeal, counsel for the Appellant raised the point that at the time the Respondent sought this discovery order at the Sessions Court, the Respondent had merely pleaded that the November 2022 bank statement was required to establish that the monies had been transferred into a particular account and not subsequently into other accounts, in any. Hence, the discovery of this document, argued the Appellant, was “not for discovery but tracing” and is an abuse of court process. Having perused the Respondent’s affidavit in support of her application at the court below, this Court finds no merits in the Appellant’s argument. [16] However, the Order of the Sessions Court for the “Penyata Akaun Ambank tersebut di atas bagi bulan berlainan selepas bulan November (jika relevan) dan/atau Penyata Akaun lain Defendan Pertama (Perayu) di mana wang terbabit dipindahkan dari Akaun Ambank tersebut di atas untuk menunjukkan pemindahan wang dan/atau bagaimana wang terbabit digunakan” is set aside. [17] In relation to these documents or bank statements after November, 2022, it is the finding of this Court that these statements are not necessary at this stage of the cause or matter, within the meaning of rule 8 of Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012, in addition to the discovery running afoul of the “too wide” and “fishing expedition” principles. Depending on what the discovery of the bank statements of November, 2022 reveals, the Respondent is at liberty to seek a fresh discovery order. [18] The parties have cited a long line of cases to support their respective contentions. [19] In the case of the Respondent, she averred that the following cases support her overriding contention that the application for discovery ought to be allowed, namely:

Protasco Bhd v Tey Por Yee & Anor and Other Appeals [2021] AMEJ 1469; [2021] 9 CLJ 349; [2021] 6 MLJ 1;

(ii) Ernst & Young (Sued as a Firm) v SJ Asset Management Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) & Anor [2019] 4 CLJ 160; [2019] 3 MLJ 795; [2020] 2 MLRA 593;

(iii) Ong Boon Hua @ Chin Peng & Anor v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia [2008] 4 AMR 694; [2008] 5 CLJ 42; [2008] 3 MLJ 625; [2008] 1 MLRA 759;

(iv) Cosmo-Omega Sdn Bhd dan Lain-Lain v Menteri Besar Selangor (Pemerbadanan) dan Satu Lagi [2023] AMEJ J0728; [2023] MLJU 839; [2023] MLRHU 605;

Ewe Khay Guan v Chin Oi Khiun [2023] AMEJ 1584; [2023] 9

(vi) Faber Merlin Malaysia Bhd v Ban Guan Sdn Bhd [1980] CLJ 189; [1981] 1 MLJ 105; [1980] 1 MLRA 341. [20] The Appellant too made reference to numerous authorities and these include:

Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] CLJU 1252; [2020] MLJU 1421; [2021] 1 MLRA 137;

(ii) Syarikat V K Kalyanasundram Sdn Bhd v Kalyani Balasubramaniam & Ors [2023] AMEJ 0829; [2023] 1 LNS 777; [2023] MLJU 964;

(iii) Licvem Shipping & Trading Aps & Anor v JLM Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] AMEJ 1046; [2016] CLJU 264; [2016] 10 MLJ 247; [2016] MLRHU 280; and

(iv) Mahfar bin Alwee v Jejaka Megah Sdn Bhd & Anor [2007] 1 AMR 129; [2007] 7 CLJ 116; [2007] 4 MLJ 175; [2006] 3 MLRH 811. [21] While there is no doubt that these cases correctly applied the relevant principles to the facts before those courts, the application of these principles and the resolution of the present appeal must likewise be grounded in the specific factual matrix of this case. Costs [22] Given that the Appellant is only partially successful in this appeal, this Court makes no order as to costs for this appeal. [23] The order for costs of RM2,000 imposed by the Sessions Court against the Appellant shall remain undisturbed. Dated: 23 January, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Miguel Jude Sequerah for the Appellant (Messrs. Preakas & Partners) Amuthavally a/p Krishnan Nair for the Respondent (Messrs. A. Nair Law Firm)