Selve A/P R. Renganathen v 1. Sowbhagyavati A/P Renganathen (BA-22NCVC-6-01/2020)

SOWBHAGYAVATI A/P RENGANATHEN ...... DEFENDAN- (NO K/P : 680418-10-6008)

DATO’ SETIA DR. HJ ANUAR MASDUKI …… DEFENDAN (NO. PENDAFTARAN MMC : 20475)

ARA DAMANSARA MEDICAL CENTRE …… DEFENDAN SDN BHD KETIGA [NO. SYARIKAT : 876408-T] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 22)

The judgment involved in this appeal relates to this Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application in Court Enclosure 22 under Order 24 rules 3(1) & 7(1) and/or O.92 r.4 of the Rules of Court 2012 for discovery of documents. This appeal has been filed notwithstanding the appellate court’s reported judgments that an interlocutory decision which does not finally dispose of a party’s rights is not appealable : see the Federal Court’s judgments in Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perubatan Negara [2020] 1 2 MLRA, Kempadang Bersatu Sdn Bhd v. Perkayuan OKS No. 2 Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 MLRA 429 and the Court of Appeal’s judgments in Datuk Seri Ting King Sing v. Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat [2014] MLRAU 313 (dismissal of discovery application) and Syarikat Tingam Timber Sdn Bhd Takang Sdn Bhd [2003] 1 MLRA 90 (ruling on inadmissibility of evidence).

The Plaintiff is the administratrix of the estate of the deceased Renganathen a/l Ramasamy. Both the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are two of the lawful children and beneficiaries of the deceased Renganathen : paragraph 2.4 of Statement of Claim; paragraph 2 of 1st Defendant’s Defence.

The 2nd Defendant is a consultant cardiologist. The 3rd Defendant is a private medical centre.

In the Writ of Summons herein, the Plaintiff claims for the following orders and reliefs: a) Satu Deklarasi bahawa kandungan Laporan Perubatan Simati, Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107] bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua, Dr. Haji Anuar Masduki adalah tidak benar dan/atau mengelirukan dan/atau tidak wajar; b) Satu perintah bahawa Laporan Perubatan Simati, Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107] bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Haji Anuar Masduki ditarik balik oleh Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Haji Anuar Masduki dan Defendan Ketiga, Ara 3 Damansara Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. dan tidak digunapakai dengan sepenuhnya; c) Satu Deklarasi bahawa penggunaan Laporan Perubatan Simati, Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10- 5107] bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Haji Anuar Masduki oleh Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418- 10-6008] bagi mana-mana tujuan dan/atau urusan sebelum pemfailan tindakan ini adalah tidak sah; d) Satu perintah bahawa Laporan Perubatan Simati, Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107] bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Haji Anuar Masduki tidak digunapakai oleh Defendan Pertama bagi mana-mana tujuan dan/atau urusan dengan sepenuhnya pada masa depan; e) Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418-10-6008], Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Hj Anuar Masduki dan Defendan Ketiga, Ara Damansara Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. membayar gantirugi am yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah kepada Estet Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107]; f) Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418-10-6008], Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Hj Anuar Masduki dan Defendan Ketiga, Ara Damansara Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. membayar gantirugi teladan (exemplary damages) dangan gantirugi keterlaluan (aggravated damages) yang 4 ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah kepada Estet Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107]; g) Satu Perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418-10-6008], Defendan Kedua, Dato’ Setia Dr. Hj Anuar Masduki dan Defendan Ketiga, Ara Damansara Medical Centre Sdn. Bhd. membayar faedah pada kadar 5% ke atas jumlah gantirugi am, gantirugi teladan (exemplary damages) dangan gantirugi keterlaluan (aggravated damages) yang ditaksirkan oleh Mahkamah kepada Estet Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107] dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; h) Satu Perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418-10-6008], tidak berhak ke atas segala gantirugi serta faedah ke atas segala gantirugi dalam tindakan ini yang dibayar kepada Estet Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107]; i) Kos tindakan ini; j) Perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama, Sowbhagyavati a/p Renganathen [No. K/P: 680418-10-6008], tidak berhak ke atas Kos dalam tindakan ini yang dibayar kepada Estet Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P : 370607-10-5107]; k) Apa-apa relif lain yang Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini fikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat untuk diberikan. 5

By Enclosure 22 filed on 18.6.2020, the Plaintiff applied for discovery of documents in the following terms:

Defendan Pertama memberikan Salinan Laporan Perubatan bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang telah disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua yang telah disetemkan di Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Cawangan Klang yang dengan jelas menunjukkan maklumat pada penyeteman Frangki iaitu nombor siri, nombor mesin dan tarikh penyeteman.

Defendan Ketiga memberikan salinan sejarah perubatan dan/atau rekod perubatan dan/atau Nota Kes (case note) Renganathen a/l Ramasamy (No. K/370607-10-5107) dari 5 Februari 2014 sehingga 25 Februari 2015 di Hospital Defendan Ketiga.

Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Ketiga masing-masing memfailkan afidavit melampirkan salinan dokumen-dokumen tersebut dalam perenggan 1 dan 2 di atas di Mahkamah dalam masa tujuh (7) hari dari Tarikh Perintah.

Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Ketiga menyerahkan Salinan asal affidavit masing-masing tersebut dalam perenggan 3 di atas kepada Plaintif dalam masa tujuh (7 ) hari dari Tarikh Perintah.

Kos dalam kausa.

Lain-lain perintah dan/atau relif yang dianggap adil dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini. 6

In a short and scanty affidavit-in-support of the discovery application, the Plaintiff stated as follows:

Saya menzahirkan affidavit ini bagi menyokong permohonan saya untuk penzahiran dokumen dan/atau kelas dokumen yang telah disenaraikan dalam Permohonan ini yang ada dalam posesi dan milikan serta jagaan Defendan Pertama dan Ketiga.

Pada tahun 2016 salah seorang waris bapa saya, Renganathen a/l Ramasamy [No. K/P: 370607-10-5107] (“Simati”) iaitu Ramayee a/p Renganathen (No. K/P : 620123- 10-5046) (“Ramayee”) telah membawa satu tindakan guaman terhadap Defendan Pertama serta suaminya Jhai Muneearasan a/l Solamuthu (No. K/P : 630630-10-5699) di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam (No. Kes : BA-22NCVC-452-08/2016).

Menerusi kes tersebut Ramayee dan saya telah mendapat tahu akan kewujudan satu Laporan Perubatan Simati bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang disediakan oleh Defendan Kedua (“Laporan Perubatan”) dan Defendan Pertama telah cuba untuk menggunapakainya dalam tindakan itu. Perkara tersebut telah diketahui menerusi Peguamcara Ramayee pada masa tersebut iaitu Tetuan Kannan & Co apabila Peguamcara Defendan Pertama pada masa itu iaitu Tetuan R. Kengadharan & Co telah menyampaikan satu Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Pertama & Kedua yang mengandungi Laporan Perubatan tersebut menerusi surat mereka bertarikh 23 Januari 2017 dengan tangan dan juga e-mel bertarikh 26 Januari 2017. 7

Laporan Perubatan tersebut telah disenaraikan sebagai item 33 dalam Indeks Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Pertama & Kedua. Bagi memudahkan rujukan dan hanya memfokuskan kepada isu material iaitu Laporan Perubatan tersebut, hanya Muka depan, Indeks Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Pertama & Kedua serta Laporan Perubatan dan surat bertarikh 23 Januari 2017 serta emel Tetuan R. Kengadharan & Co bertarikh 26 Januari 2017 dilampirkan dalam affidavit ini dan ditandakan seperti berikut : a) Muka depan dan Indeks Ikatan Dokumen Defendan Pertama & Kedua ditandakan sebagai Lampiran 1 dalam Ekshibit “S-1”. b) Laporan Perubatan bertarikh 23 April 2015 ditandakan sebagai Lampiran 2 dalam Ekshibit “S-1”. c) Surat Tetuan R. Kengadharan & Co bertarikh 23 Januari 2017 ditandakan sebagai Lampiran 3 dalam Ekshibit “S-1”. d) Emel Tetuan R. Kengadharan bertarikh 26 Januari 2017 ditandakan sebagai Lampiran 4 dalam Ekshibit “S-1”.

Laporan Perubatan tersebut didapati telah disetemkan dengan diberikan kepada Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri cawangan Klang. Walaubagaimanapun, maklumat yang terkandung pada penyeteman Frangki tersebut iaitu nombor siri, nombor mesin dan Tarikh penyeteman adalah tidak jelas dan kabur. Maka, 8 menerusi permohonan ini, saya memohon agar diberikan dengan satu Salinan Laporan Perubatan bertarikh 23 April 2015 yang dengan jelas menunjukkan maklumat tersebut.

Saya juga menerusi permohonan ini memohon agar diberikan dengan Salinan sejarah perubatan dan/atau rekod perubatan dan/atau Nota Kes (case note) Simati dari 5 Februari 2014 di mana Simati telah mendapatkan ‘Consultation’ sehingga 25 Februari 2015 iaitu pada Tarikh Simati telah meninggal dunia di Hospital Defendan Ketiga. Bersama ini disertakan ‘Patient Bill-Detailed’ dan ditandakan sebagai Lampiran 5 dalam Ekshibit “S-1”.

Dokumen-Dokumen dan/atau kelas dokumen yang dipohon supaya dizahirkan dan diberikan menerusi permohonan ini adalah penting serta mempunyai kesan yang amat dalam melupuskan tindakan ini secara adil dan kos efektif di mana Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Ketiga ada dalam posesi, milikan, jagaan atau kuasa mereka,

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, saya dengan rendah diri memohon untuk perintah seperti yang dipohon.

Prior to the discovery application in Enclosure 22, the Plaintiff on or about 28 February 2020 served the interrogatory of 13 questions upon the 2nd Defendant.

By the 2nd Defendant’s Affidavit affirmed on 4.6.2020, the 2nd Defendant answered all the 13 questions listed in the interrogatories. 9

O. 24 r. 3(1), r.7(1), r.8 of the Rules of Court 2012 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.

Order for discovery of particular documents (O. 24 r. 7)

Subject to rule 8, the Court may at any time, on the application of any party to a cause or matter, make an order requiring any other party to make an affidavit stating whether any document specified or described in the application or any class of document so specified or described is, or has at any time been, in his possession, custody or power, and if not then in his possession, custody or power when he parted with it and what has become of it.

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 10 necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.”

Under the case management procedure in Order 34 of Rules of Court 2012, the standard case management directions given by the Court include exchange and filing of documents between the parties. Inclusion of such case management direction on exchange of documents serves several purposes including avoiding the unnecessary interlocutory applications such as discovery applications which would entail more affidavits, written submissions and interlocutory orders in the main suit with the Order 34 case management procedure of directions, it is only in exceptional cases that a litigant has to resort to Order 24 r. 3 application for general discovery.

In a discovery application, the Plaintiff needs to show that the documents are “relevant” to the subject matter of the suit. Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ in the case of Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Bhd [1993] MLJU 96 (supra, Tab “B”) held that relevance is 1 of the 3 fundamental elements an applicant must establish in order to be granted a discovery order:- “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 person against whom the order for discovery is sought … As to ‘relevance’, our Rules of the High Court limit discovery to documents which are ‘relevant to’ or ‘relate’ to the factual issues in dispute.” 11

As O.24 r.3 is expressly subject to O.24 r.8, the applicant, in addition to showing the relevancy of the documents, also has to show that the discovery order is necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs.

Similarly, the plaintiff in an application for specific discovery also has to prove that the specific documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute as well as necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs.

It is insufficient for the Plaintiff to merely make an assertion of necessity and / or relevance as per the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support. The Plaintiff’s failure to support her assertions with cogent affidavit evidence is fatal to her discovery applications: see Goo Saw Jin v Hwang Sze Yunn & Anor [2018] MLJU 367 where Nantha Balan J (as he then was) upheld the learned Sessions Court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s discovery application. His lordship was of the view that it is insufficient for the plaintiff to make bare assertion of “necessity”, the plaintiff must prove it. Failure to do so would mean that the discovery application must fail:- “[47] Thus, in applying the relevant legal principles to the facts of the present case, it may be accurate to state that when the plaintiff’s discovery application is viewed through the “lens of necessity”, it is clear that the plaintiff was completely failed to address the requirement of necessity. The plaintiff has merely asserted that the documents are purportedly relevant without demonstrating in what they are relevant.” 12

It is also trite that the Court will not order a discovery which is tantamount to fishing expedition: Nguang Chan aka Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v. Hai-O Enterprise Bhd & Ors [2009] 5 MLJ 40 (Court of Appeal judgment).

In the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated in what way the document sought to be discovered are relevant to the issues in the case. At the hearing of the application before me, the Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to explain in what way the documents sought are allegedly relevant to the issues pleaded in the case.

The Plaintiff here complains against 2nd Defendant and 3rd Defendant that a 1-page medical report dated 23.4.2015 (“2015 Report” – Exhibit SR-1) prepared and signed by the 2nd Defendant, who is an independent medical specialist with the 3rd Defendant’s hospital, contains 3 allegedly untrue or misleading or improper information:-

That the deceased patient (i.e. the Plaintiff’s late father) was not seen by the 2nd Defendant at the outpatient department on 5.2.2015 as stated in the 2015 Report;

That no blood test was done on the Deceased on 5.2.2015; and (c ) That the Deceased was not alert and rational on 9.10.2014 and 5.2.2015 as stated in the 2015 Report..

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is centred on these 3 matters contained in the 2015 Report only. There is no allegation of negligent treatment, etc. 13

By reason of the 2015 Report, the Plaintiff claims that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have breached “implied terms”, duty of confidentiality, fiduciary duty and the Personal Data Protection Act. It is unclear what loss is suffered by the Plaintiff as the administratrix of the Deceased’s estate; and there was no pleaded fact in this regard. The 3rd Defendant has denied the Plaintiff’s claim as a whole.

In response to the Plaintiff’s complaints, the 2nd Defendant has admitted to making the following typographical errors in the 2015

The Deceased was last seen on “15.2.2015” instead of “5.2.2015”; and

The Deceased was seen “in the ward” instead of at the “Outpatient Department”. The 2nd Defendant further clarified that the blood test mentioned in the 2015 Report, was a blood test conducted at Subang Jaya Medical Centre, which was made known to the 2nd Defendant (consistent with Attachment 6 of the PAIS). The 2nd Defendant as the author of the 2015 Report expressed his willingness to rectify those typographical errors, as demanded by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim, although the significance of the rectification is unclear. The 2nd Defendant had also issued a 2017 Report detailing the correct information, and the 2017 Report had been handed over to the Plaintiff well before this suit was filed. 14

Back in 2017, the 3rd Defendant’s medical records officer, En. Hamidi, had already given written confirmation to the Plaintiff that there is no record of the Deceased at its hospital on 5.2.2015. - En. Hamidi even attended court as a subpoenaed witness of the Plaintiff in a separate suit involving the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, to confirm the above. However, En. Hamidi was then informed that is evidence is not necessary. That suit was then withdrawn. The 3rd Defendant was not a party in that suit. - All these are the undisputed facts pleaded in the Plaintiff’s own Statement of Claim: see paragraphs 8 to 11 thereof.

Prayer 1 of the Plaintiff’s discovery application is for the 1st Defendant to provide a copy of the Medical Report dated 3.4.2015 prepared by the 2nd Defendant which clearly shows the information on parking of the stamp with the serial number, machine number and date of stamping. This Court finds no valid basis for granting prayer (1) of the discovery application because:

in this Suit, the Plaintiff has not specifically pleaded any challenge to the authenticity of the Medical Report dated 23.4.2015;

the Defendants have since exhibited a colour copy of the Medical Report dated 23.4.2015 which shows the details with sufficient clarity; and

this type of prayer ought to be resolved by the Plaintiff’s request for a clear copy thereof instead of coming to the Court for an order. 15

Prayer 2 of the Plaintiff’s discovery application is for an entire set of medical history, medical records and/or case notes (collectively “Medical Documents”) of the deceased Reganathan a/l Ramasamy from 5 February 2014 until 25 February 2015 at the 3rd Defendant’s hospital.

In the first place, the Plaintiff has not explained in her affidavits in what way the Medical Documents are relevant to the pleaded issues in this case. Neither could the Plaintiff’s counsel offer any sufficient explanation at the hearing of Enclosure 22 to justify the relevance of the Medical Documents to the pleaded issues.

Secondly, the categories and extent of the Medical Documents for the entire 12 months are too wide.

Thirdly, the Plaintiff has not explained in what way the Medical Documents are necessary to be discovered at this stage or can be for saving costs. Compelling a medical centre to prepare, verify and produce the entire Medical Documents on a patient in the absence of any specific pleading of alleged medical negligence would entail much preparation, work and costs to be incurred by the medical centre. In the usual course of events, the medical centre should be allowed to focus their attention and efforts in attending to the medical needs and the healthcare requirements of the patients instead of being unnecessarily burdened with the provision of excessive quantity of medical records and documents. The Court of law should not order the doctors and medical centres to provide a wide range of medical documents at the slightest request of the applicant who does not specifically show the relevancy and necessity of discovery of such documents. 16

Based on the pleadings, there is no discernible significance or relevance to the period of “5.2.2014 to 25.2.2015”. The Plaintiff gave no explanation as to why this period is relevant or important in this suit. The onus of proof is on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has failed to discharge such onus of proof. In the Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support, the Plaintiff merely makes a sweeping allegation that the medical record is “important” and its disclosure will be “cost effective” without giving any particulars or supporting evidence (see paragraphs 9 and 10 Plaintiff’s Affidavit-in-Support). This is insufficient for sustaining an application for discovery of documents at this stage. On the contrary, the disclosure of 1-year worth of medical records, which is ultimately not the subject matter of this suit, will only unnecessarily waste costs and time for all parties. The Plaintiff has not shown that the determination of this suit is contingent upon the medical records sought for. As the burden of proving necessity and relevance falls squarely on the Plaintiff, the absence of the same suggests that Enclosure 22 is a mere fishing expedition. See Mahfar Alwee v Jejaka Megah Sdn Bhd & Anor [2007] 4 MLJ 175. The granting of a disproportionate discovery order against the 3rd Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to fish for evidence, will be unduly oppressive to the 3rd Defendant, and cannot be allowed by this Court.

To-date, the Plaintiff failed to explain why they need the medical records for that specific period, bearing in mind that this period does not appear 17 anywhere in the pleadings. This is not unlike the case of Licvem Shipping & Trading Aps & Anor v. JLM Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 10 MLJ 247, where the High Court dismissed outright the Plaintiff’s discovery application because the documents sought were far too wide and not relevant to the factual issues under study:- “[15] Although I am mindful that this court has a discretionary power to order the discovery of any document at any stage of the proceedings, the documents sought cannot be far too wide and further it has to be relevant and related to the factual issues. In the instant case, to seek for the discovery of documents in respect of all the bank accounts and all statements of account of the first defendant, in my considered opinion, is far too wide and wholly inappropriate. For this reason alone, the application ought to be dismissed.”

Where the request is too wide and the documents are irrelevant to the subject matter, it amounts to a fishing expedition. It is trite law that discovery will not be granted in a fishing expedition as aptly explained by the Court of Appeal in Nguang Chan aka Nguang Chan Liquor Trader & Ors v. Hai-O Enterprise Bhd & Ors [2009] 5 MLJ 40 at pg. 47:- “Finally the court would dismiss a plaintiff’s application for discovery if it is of the view that the plaintiff was ‘merely fishing for evidence to prop up his case’ and to allow him discovery would be unduly oppressive to the party giving discovery – see Leslie S Holmes v Engineering Service Inc [1993] 1 AMR 27 at p 36.” 18

In the course of the hearing of the discovery application, the Plaintiff’s counsel did not explain the purpose of asking for 12 months of the entire Medical Documents relating to the deceased Renganathan.

It also shows that the Plaintiff does not really know what they are looking for, and is just casting a wide net hoping for something to turn up. Such an approach has been condemned in Pharr Lapp Sdn Bhd v Posco-Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] MLJU 1726 where the Court disallowed an abuse of the discovery process merely to trawl for evidence and hope to find something useful for its case. See:- “[24] It was obvious that the Plaintiff had no inkling of what it was really looking for, and was merely casting the net wide with the hope that it could come out with something to challenge Delloitte’s findings. ……… [29] It was held succinctly in Re State of Norway’s Application [1989] 1 All ER 661, that an application for discovery is regarded as a fishing expedition, if it is intended to look for new allegations. [30] The plaintiff has not adduced any credible evidence to question the report, and was merely speculating… [31] The plaintiff could not seek to merely trawl for evidence by casting the net over a wide-open sea. It needs to be specific, and could not hope to conduct what would amount to a ransacking exercise with the hope of discovering something useful. The discovery must be purposeful, which was not the case here.” 19

In conclusion, this Court has found and concluded that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the discovery prayers sought here at this stage is relevant to the pleaded issues, and the plaintiff has not shown that such discovery orders are necessary for fairly disposing of the matter or for saving costs.

In the premises, this Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s discovery application in Enclosure 22 with costs.

After hearing counsel on costs, this Court assesses costs of the application at RM2,000/= to each of the 1st Defendant and the 3rd Defendant, subject to the allocatur. Dated : 2nd November 2020 Signed ………........................................................ TEE GEOK HOCK JUDICIAL COMMISIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SHAH ALAM (NCVC 10) 20 To the parties’ solicitors:

For the Plaintiff : Kannan a/l Kulaseeran, Messrs Kannan & Co.

For the 1stDefendant : R. Prabaharan, Messrs R. Kengadharan & Co. For The 2nd Defendant : Wong Jia Jing, Messrs Shearn Delamore& Co. For the 3rd Defendant : Tan Sixin, Messrs Azim, Tunku Farik & Wong