The Court may, in any particular case, order that the accounting and other records of a company be open to inspection by an approved company auditor acting for a director, subject to a written undertaking given to the Court that information acquired by the auditor during his inspection shall not be disclosed by him except to that director. [15] The question of whether s. 245 of the CA covers the inspection of documents belong to the subsidiaries of the company to which my answer is in positive. I share the same view with Liza Chan Sow Keng JC (as she then was) in Datuk Beh Kim Ling & Anor v NEP Holdings (M) Bhd [2023] 8 MLJ 81 where the Ladyship followed the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Mukherjee Amitava v Dystar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others [2018] 2 SLR 1054 that the scope of inspection in the CA is very wide and would include the right of inspection of a company’s records and its subsidiaries. The Singapore Court of Appeal, after considering whether the right of inspection extended to documents belonging to subsidiaries and related companies, allowed the appellant to inspect documents and records in the possession of the company even if they belonged to the subsidiaries of the company to the extent that those documents and records can be shown to be relevant and necessary to explain the transactions and financial position of the company and enable true and fair financial statements to be prepared. It has to be noted that in Singapore, the power of the court to allow for inspection is provided for in s.199 of the Singapore Companies Act which is in pari materia to s. 245 of the CA. [16] As such, the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff is not entitled to inspect the Accounting and other Records belonging to the Defendant’s subsidiaries is misconceived. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to inspect documents prior to the Plaintiff’s appointment as a director of to the Defendant [17] On the Defendant’s second ground, I find instructive the case of Paul Nicholson v. Faber Medi-Serve Sdn Bhd & Ors [2002] 5 CLJ 383; [2002] 1 MLJ 355 where Wan Adnan Muhamad J (as he then was) held that the right of a director to inspect the company's documents is not only a mandatory right provided under the CA, but the Act also confers an absolute right to the director to inspect the company's documents and records. [18] In Dato' Tan Kim Hor & Ors v. Tan Chong Consolidated Sdn Bhd [2004] 1 CLJ 317; [2009] 2 MLJ 527, Low Hop Bing JCA when delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal further affirmed such position in law as follows: "[28] In our view, s. 167(6) is intended to facilitate and liberalise, and is not meant to impede, the right of inspection. Indeed, almost unbridled powers are conferred upon the court to give effect to the directors' right of inspection. Clearly, it is within the powers of the court to allow the plaintiffs to furnish a fresh undertaking by the auditor in terms as required by the court, by addressing it to the court and by deleting therefrom the words relating to the appointed servants/agents. This is especially so after the learned judge had arrived at a specific decision that the defendant had, in the first instance, failed to discharge its burden to show that the plaintiffs' inspection would result in any detriment to the interests of the defendant. That is a reaffirmation that the right of inspection by the plaintiffs as directors of the defendants pursuant to s. 167(6) is 'absolute'". [19] It is my view that the Plaintiff, being a director, is entitled to know all records as long as they relate to the company including documents prior to his appointment as a director. How could the Plaintiff discharge his duties efficiently if his statutory right to inspect a document is seized away just because that document is a document prior to his appointment. I find there is no logic to deny the Plaintiff with such reason. Being a director, the Plaintiff should be equipped with all information relating the Defendant including any matter which had occurred in the Defendant prior to his appointment and such information could be gathered, inter alia, from the Defendant’s documents. [20] On the significance of a director be equipped with all information, I can do no better than echoing the following dictum of Mohd Nazlan Ghazali J (now JCA) in Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 CLJ 103, as follows: [34] Does the same position obtain in this country? The short answer is in the positive. I cannot but hold that the right for copies is integral to and intertwined with the very concept of inspection right itself. Unlike the scope of shareholder's inspection rights, which is more restricted, it is a correct statement of law that in this country the right of a company director to inspect the corporate books and records and access all company information is virtually absolute. This is not difficult to appreciate. As directors are tasked with the responsibility of managing the business and affairs of the company, it is nothing less than axiomatic that the individual director cannot truly make his full contribution to the management of the corporate business unless he or she is given access to the corporation's books and records. Documents had been provided by the Defendant [21] The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s application for inspection must be rejected as the latter has been given with copies of –