a
(a) The Parties
Loading…
/akn/my/judgment/high-court/2026/fc6192e8-6f4b-49ee-9550-75de354cc6fd
High Court of Malaysia9 Mar 2026BA-24NCvC-2033-09/2025
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“AM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-24NCvC-2033-09/2025 In the matter of Order 24 Rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012, Section 25(2) and Paragraph 14 Schedule to the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Section 5(1)(g) read together with Sections 5(2), 12, 30 and 31 Personal Data Protection Act 2010;”
“matter of Order 24 Rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012, Section 25(2) and Paragraph 14 Schedule to the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Section 5(1)(g) read together with Sections 5(2), 12, 30 and 31 Personal Data Protection Act 2010; And In the matter of Universities and University Colleges Act 1971; And In the matter”
“aragraph 14 Schedule to the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Section 5(1)(g) read together with Sections 5(2), 12, 30 and 31 Personal Data Protection Act 2010; And In the matter of Universities and University Colleges Act 1971; And In the matter of Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000; And In the matter”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Text
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN SHAH ALAM IN THE STATE OF SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN CIVIL SUIT NO.: BA-24NCvC-2033-09/2025 In the matter of Order 24 Rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012, Section 25(2) and Paragraph 14 Schedule to the Court of Judicature Act 1964 and Section 5(1)(g) read together with Sections 5(2), 12, 30 and 31 Personal Data Protection Act 2010; And In the matter of Universities and University Colleges Act 1971; And In the matter of Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000; And In the matter of Keputusan Jawatankuasa Pemilih Universiti Putra Malaysia 10/07/2026 09:53:54 BA-24NCvC-2033-09/2025 Kand. 43 S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 BETWEEN MOHD ZAIRUL BIN MOHD NOOR … PLAINTIFF (NRIC No.: 801119-01-5091) AND
section
1. UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA
section
2. JAWATANKUASA PEMILIH 2/2024 FAKULTI REKABENTUK DAN SENIBINA UPM
section
3. DEKAN FAKULTI REKABENTUK DAN SENIBINA UPM
section
4. KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN TINGGI MALAYSIA ... DEFENDANTS S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION
section
1. This Originating Summons concerns an application by the Plaintiff for pre-action discovery pursuant to Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012, read together with section 25(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and paragraph 14 of the Schedule thereto.
section
2. By this application the Plaintiff seeks orders compelling the Defendants to produce various documents said to be in their possession relating to the deliberations of the Jawatankuasa Pemilih 2024 Fakulti Rekabentuk dan Senibina Universiti Putra Malaysia, which had considered the Plaintiff’s application for promotion within the academic structure of the university.
section
3. The Plaintiff contends that the documents sought are necessary in order to determine whether the decision-making process of the committee may have been affected by irregularity, bias or other improper considerations which may give rise to a cause of action.
section
4. The Defendants resist the application and submit that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the necessity required under Order 24 rule 7A, and that the application is in substance an attempt to obtain access to the internal deliberative materials of the committee in the hope of discovering evidence which might S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 subsequently support a legal challenge to the promotion decision.
section
5. Having carefully considered the affidavits filed by the parties, the documentary exhibits placed before the Court and the submissions advanced by learned counsels, I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold required under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012.
section
6. In my judgment, the application falls outside the intended scope of pre-action discovery and amounts to what the authorities have consistently described as a fishing expedition. FACTS
a
(a) The Parties
section
7. The Plaintiff is Dr Mohd Zairul bin Mohd Noor, an academic staff member serving at Universiti Putra Malaysia (“UPM”).
section
8. The first Defendant is Universiti Putra Malaysia, a public university established under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.
section
9. The second Defendant is the Jawatankuasa Pemilih 2024 Fakulti Rekabentuk dan Senibina UPM, a committee constituted within the faculty for the purpose of evaluating promotion applications submitted by academic staff. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5
section
10. The Third Defendant is the Dean of the Faculty of Design and Architecture, while the Fourth Defendant is the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, which exercises supervisory responsibility over public universities.
b
(b) Background to the Promotion Exercise
section
11. The Plaintiff submitted an application for promotion within the academic hierarchy of Universiti Putra Malaysia.
section
12. The application was considered by the Jawatankuasa Pemilih 2024 Fakulti Rekabentuk dan Senibina, which is responsible for evaluating candidates and making recommendations in relation to academic promotions.
section
13. Following deliberations of the committee, the Plaintiff’s application for promotion was not recommended.
section
14. The Plaintiff was subsequently informed of the outcome through official communication issued by the university.
section
15. The affidavit exhibits include a memorandum issued by the university informing the Plaintiff that his promotion application had not been recommended following the committee’s deliberations. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6
section
16. That memorandum forms part of the evidential record before the Court and demonstrates that the Plaintiff was aware of the outcome of the promotion exercise.
c
(c) Documentary Evidence
section
17. The affidavit bundle also contains an extract of the committee record marked “SULIT”, which reflects part of the deliberations of the Jawatankuasa Pemilih.
section
18. The presence of this document within the exhibits indicates that the Plaintiff has already obtained sight of at least part of the committee record relating to the promotion exercise.
section
19. The document illustrates the nature of the materials generated during the committee’s deliberations, namely internal records reflecting evaluative discussions among committee members concerning the merits of candidates.
d
(d) Documents Sought by the Plaintiff
section
20. Notwithstanding this, the Plaintiff seeks disclosure of further documents said to relate to the committee’s deliberations, including:
a
(a) attendance lists of meetings;
b
(b) minutes of meetings; S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7
c
(c) records or transcripts of discussions among committee members;
d
(d) complaints or reports relating to the Plaintiff;
e
(e) other documents considered by the committee during its evaluation of candidates.
section
21. The Plaintiff asserts that these documents are necessary to determine whether the decision-making process was affected by bias, irregularity or other improper considerations. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
a
(a) Order 24 rule 7A
section
22. Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 allows the Court to order discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings where it is shown that the documents sought are necessary for the purpose of identifying or pleading a cause of action.
section
23. The rule confers a discretionary power upon the Court and must be exercised cautiously.
section
24. The requirement of necessity is central to the rule. It is not sufficient for an applicant to demonstrate that the documents sought may be relevant or useful.
section
25. The applicant must demonstrate that the documents are necessary in order to identify or plead a cause of action. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8
b
(b) Authorities on Pre-Action Discovery
section
26. In Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bandar Utama 1JMB [2019] 10 CLJ 516, the court emphasised that pre-action discovery must not be used as a device to conduct a fishing expedition.
section
27. The court held that the applicant must demonstrate genuine necessity rather than mere curiosity or suspicion.
section
28. Similarly, in Yekambaram Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [1994] 2 CLJ 581, the court emphasised that discovery should not be ordered where the request is speculative.
section
29. These authorities demonstrate that discovery procedures cannot be used as investigative tools to search for possible wrongdoing.
c
(c) Discovery Proceedings
section
30. The Court must also bear in mind the limits of judicial intervention in administrative decision-making.
section
31. In R Rama Chandran v Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 145, the Federal Court emphasised that judicial intervention focuses on the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9
section
32. Courts must therefore exercise restraint in matters involving discretionary or evaluative decisions made by specialised bodies. ISSUES
section
33. The issues arising in the present case are as follows:
a
(a) whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the documents sought are necessary within the meaning of Order 24 rule 7A;
b
(b) whether the application amounts to a fishing expedition;
c
(c) whether the disclosure sought would intrude into the internal deliberations of an academic decision-making body. COURT FINDINGS
a
(a) Plaintiff Already Knows the Decision 34. The evidence before the Court shows that the Plaintiff was formally informed that his promotion application had not been recommended.
section
35. The memorandum exhibited in the affidavit confirms that the Plaintiff was aware of the outcome of the promotion exercise. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10
section
36. The Plaintiff therefore does not require discovery of documents in order to determine whether a decision had been made.
b
(b) Plaintiff Already Has Part of the Committee Record 37. The affidavit bundle also contains an extract of the committee record marked “SULIT”, reflecting part of the deliberations of the Jawatankuasa Pemilih.
section
38. This indicates that the Plaintiff has already obtained sight of part of the committee record relating to the promotion exercise.
section
39. The document illustrates the nature of the committee’s internal deliberations, which consist of evaluative discussions concerning the merits of candidates.
c
(c) Nature of the Discovery Sought 40. What the Plaintiff now seeks is not disclosure of the decision itself but disclosure of the internal deliberations of the committee.
section
41. The discovery sought therefore goes beyond identifying the existence of a decision. Instead, the Plaintiff seeks to examine the reasoning process through which the committee reached its decision. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11
d
(d) Fishing Expedition 42. In my view, this places the present application squarely within the category of a fishing expedition. The Plaintiff seeks disclosure of internal deliberative materials in order to investigate whether a cause of action might exist.
section
43. The authorities make it clear that discovery procedures cannot be used in such a manner.
e
(e) Institutional Discretion 44. There is also a further consideration. Promotion exercises within a university are inherently evaluative and discretionary in nature.
section
45. They involve the assessment of academic merit, research output, teaching performance and professional standing. Such matters fall primarily within the expertise of the academic institution.
section
46. Courts have consistently recognised the need to exercise restraint in matters involving specialised evaluative judgments. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12
f
(f) Risk of Encroaching into Academic Governance 47. To compel disclosure of the internal deliberations of the promotion committee in circumstances such as the present would effectively allow scrutiny of the evaluative reasoning of the committee.
section
48. This would risk intruding into the institutional discretion vested in the university’s governance structures.
section
49. The Court must therefore exercise caution in order to avoid encroaching upon matters that properly fall within the domain of academic administration. DECISION
section
50. Having considered the affidavits, documentary exhibits and submissions of the parties, I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the documents sought are necessary within the meaning of Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012.
section
51. The Plaintiff already knows the outcome of the promotion exercise and has obtained sight of part of the committee record. S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13
section
52. What the Plaintiff now seeks is disclosure of the internal deliberations of the committee in order to investigate whether a cause of action might exist.
section
53. In my judgment, this falls outside the intended scope of pre-action discovery and amounts to an impermissible fishing expedition.
section
54. Accordingly, the Originating Summons is dismissed with costs of RM 4,000.00 to 1st- 3rd Defendants and RM 2,000.00 to the 4th Defendant.
section
55. The dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to commence substantive proceedings should he consider that the promotion decision was affected by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. Dated 1 Jun 2026 -sgd-ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiff : Muhammad Faiz bin Hasan (Messrs Asyraf & Co) For the 1st-3rd Defendants : Isabella Cheah Chooi Mun & Nur Liyana binti Nor Azman (Messrs Zain & Co) For the 4th Defendant : Sheryn Yong Shi Yee (Peguam Persekutuan, Jabatan Peguam Negara) S/N Cqf3/QJCpEyAbE9whbsClg **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.