Soh Siew Lan v 1. ) Koh Zoo Kwee (WA-24NCvC-18-01/2023)

I had dismissed the plaintiff’s Originating Summons application for Pre - Action discovery pursuant to Order 24 Rule 7A (1) of the Rules of Court 2012 on 18-08-2023 with costs of RM 5,000 to the 1st defendant subject to allocatur.

Essentially, I held that the plaintiff was on an Ekspedisi Memancing or in the English language a fishing expedition as the plaintiff was asking for 12 categories of documents from 14 companies from 01-01-2015 to August 2023, a period of 8 years.

A 'fishing expedition' in the context of Pre - Action discovery refers to the aimless trawling of an unlimited sea. To my mind, the plaintiff in this case is indeed casting her nets in "The Seven Seas” a figurative term of ancient lineage for all the seas of the known world. She does not know a specific and identifiable spot into which she wishes to drop a line (or two). [See Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75 Choo Han Teck JC and Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Company Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 CLJ 179 & [2017] 10 MLJ 213 Wong Kian Kheong JC].

The 2nd defendant Ong Chong Keong took no part in this Originating Summons as he is just the secretary of the 14 companies - according to the plaintiff - which the plaintiff sought pre - action discovery. These 14 companies have not been made defendants in this Originating Summons. This omission is fatal which I will elaborate more below.

There are also other reasons for dismissing the Originating Summons which I will set out below. Unhappy, the plaintiff had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 14-09-2023. These are my Grounds of Decision.

The plaintiff says that at the material time she is the director and shareholder of the following companies which were founded and / or co - founded by her late husband Goy Sing Huat (“the late husband”) :- a. Golden Cleaning Services Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1021622-H); b. GLK Jobs Management Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 949606-U); c. JS Jobs Cleaning Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 957419-P); d. JS Jobs Services Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 908026-P); e. Seal Cleanings Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1092147-U); f. PG Cleaning Services Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 951224-W); g. KZK Services Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 891792-A); 4 h. T&G Advantage Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1000452-W); i. Uni Maq Auto Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1047302-T); j. AP Golden Jobs Sdn Bhd Company No.: 1036531-W k. Perkhidmatan Pembersihan Sinaran Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 944286-X); l. Perkhidmatan Pembersihan Maju Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 944285-T); m. Perkhidmatan Pembersihan KL Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 948390-K); n. Perkhidmatan Pembersihan HK Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 944840-X) (Collectively known as “the Companies”)

The first defendant is also a director and shareholder of the Companies, while the second defendant is the secretary of the Companies and he trades under the name and style of JNC Management Services.

The plaintiff is the executor of the Will of the late husband’s estate and she is the sole beneficiary of the late husband’s estate.

The plaintiff contends that as a shareholder, director and beneficial owner of the Companies she is entitled to all the documents of the Companies. [See Enclosure 2 Supporting Affidavit paragraph 49].

The plaintiff contends that the 1st defendant had committed fraud in respect of the Companies and she requires all the documents to commence actions for minority oppression and / or initiate derivative actions against the 1st defendant. [See letter of demand from plaintiff’s solicitors M/s Ong, Ric and Partners to 1st defendant in Enclosure 2 Supporting Affidavit Exhibit H at page 258 sub - paragraph [v]].

The 1st defendant denies all the allegations of fraud made against him.

The 1st defendant further contends that he doesn’t have several of the documents specified by the plaintiff, some documents can be obtained from the CCM and the request was oppressive and a fishing expedition.

The plaintiff filed an Originating Summons dated 04-01-2023 for pre - action discovery against the defendants.

The plaintiff has listed in List A of her Originating Summons all the documents that the plaintiff sought from the defendants. These documents are – reproduced verbatim here as translated into English 6 by the plaintiff’s counsel in Enclosure 16 paragraph 18 of the Plaintiff’s Written Submissions :- a. List of the foreign workers in the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; b. Permits and / or letters of approvals issued by KDN and / or any other government agencies to bring in or renew foreign workers connected to the business of the late Goy whether in the Companies or otherwise [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Enclosure 16 Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]; c. List of payment for the foreign workers; d. List of deposits paid by the employers; e. List of levy payment and / or any statutory payment; f. All contracts signed with employers in relation to the supply of foreign workers by the Companies and/or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant. [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Enclosure 16 Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]; g. Individual income tax forms of the first defendant; h. Income tax forms of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; 7 i. Bank Statements of the first defendant held by the first defendant and / or joint name with other party; j. Bank Statement of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; k. Financial Statement of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; l. Grant or details of cars bought with the monies from the business of the late Goy, including Toyota Alphard No. WXN3136 whether registered in the name of the company or the name of the First Defendant or his representative. [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Enclosure 16 Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]; m. Car grant of other cars purchased with the money of the late Goy whether registered in the name of the company or the name of the first defendant or his representative. [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Enclosure 16 Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]; n. Account statements, proofs of payment and all documentation in relation to the sale of Atmosfera condominium; o. All documents and original Form for Transfer of Shares of the Companies; 8 p. All documents and the original forms filed with CCM in relation to the change of directors and shareholders.

The law on Pre - Action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 is now well-settled. [See Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 6 MLJ 363 CA, [2017] 8 CLJ 554 CA & [2017] 4 MLRA 203 CA, Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bandar Utama 1 JMB [2018] 4 MLRA 345 CA, [2019] 10 CLJ 516 CA & [2018] MLJU 697 CA and Sharifah Sofia bt Syed Hussein (representing Hak Asasi Hidupan Liar Malaysia Global) & Ors v Pengarah Kepada Lembaga Kebajikan Haiwan [2022] 7 CLJ 267 HC & [2022] 12 MLJ 37 HC & [2023] 1 MLRH 691 HC]

The principles relevant to the issues of the case before me that can be distilled from the decided cases are - i. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the Malaysian court should exercise its discretion to grant a pre-action discovery. ii. The documents sought to be discovered must be specified or sufficiently described and the applicant must satisfy the court that the documents sought are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise in the intended proceedings. [Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as 9 trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Heo [2017] 6 MLJ 363 CA at paragraph [38]]. iii. To resist disclosure, the defendant can show that the plaintiff is on a fishing trip or fishing expedition. In such a situation, the application will be dismissed. [Senibong Cove Property Management Services Sdn Bhd v Lembaga Penilai, Pentaksir, Ejen Harta Tanah Dan Pengurus Harta [2022] 8 CLJ 484]. iv. A 'fishing expedition' in the context of pre - action discovery refers to the aimless trawling of an unlimited sea. Where, on the other hand, the plaintiff knows a specific and identifiable spot into which he wishes to drop a line (or two), it would not be regarded as a 'fishing expedition'. [Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75 Choo Han Teck JC and Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Company Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 CLJ 179 & [2017] 10 MLJ 213 Wong Kian Kheong JC]. v. A plaintiff is not entitled to an order for discovery of documents based on some hunch or intuition that the defendants have committed some wrongful or fraudulent acts against the plaintiff. This express desire of the plaintiff is but a manifestation of an intention to go on a fishing expedition, in hope that something may get entangled in the net and finding some material upon which a charge could be hung. That is never the purpose of a pre - action discovery order. [Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v Kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 10 CLJ 585 HC Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J]. 10 vi. A pre - action discovery application is frivolous and an abuse of the court process if the documents sought are already in the plaintiff’s possession or can be obtained from public records like the CCM. [Yap Sin Moy v Pembinaan YSL Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 972 Noorin Badaruddin J]. vii. A pre - action discovery application for documents of a company will be dismissed if the director is a defendant to the application but not the company. This is based on the principle that a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders and directors established in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. The documents are considered company property rather than personal property of the directors.

The 1st defendant raised a few grounds to oppose the Originating Summons. I will consider them one by one.

In my view, the plaintiff is on a fishing trip or fishing expedition. The plaintiff is asking for 12 categories of documents from 14 companies from 01-01-2015 to August 2023, a period of 8 years. This is an aimless trawling of an unlimited sea.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Foo Wen Cong, argued that his application is specific and not a trawling as he had particularised all the 16 categories of documents precisely.

To me, this argument is misconceived. He is, with respect, fishing in "The Seven Seas” a figurative term for all the seas of the known world. He does not know a specific and identifiable spot into which he wishes to drop a line (or two). [See Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75 Choo Han Teck JC and Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Company Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 CLJ 179 & [2017] 10 MLJ 213 Wong Kian Kheong JC].

To illustrate what is not a fishing expedition, in Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 6 MLJ 363 CA, [2017] 8 CLJ 554 CA & [2017] 4 MLRA 203 CA the Court of Appeal granted pre-action discovery of a Trust Deed. The document was specific and clearly identified as relevant and necessary to dispose fairly the dispute between the parties there.

On the ground of fishing alone, I can dismiss the Originating Summons. A plaintiff is not entitled to an order for pre - action discovery of documents based on some hunch or intuition that the defendants have committed some wrongful or fraudulent acts against the plaintiff

The plaintiff had alleged she suspected the 1st defendant had committed fraud against her. [See Enclosure 2 Supporting Affidavit at paragraphs 29 - 41].

This is not a good ground. A plaintiff is not entitled to an order for discovery of documents based on some hunch or intuition that the defendants have committed some wrongful or fraudulent acts against the plaintiff. [See Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v Kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 10 CLJ 585 HC, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J].

In Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v Kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 10 CLJ 585 HC, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J when dismissing the pre-action discovery held as follows -

The plaintiff has stated in the grounds in support of this application that the plaintiff has reason to believe that the defendants had conducted themselves fraudulently or in an otherwise improper or negligent manner in respect of the charge; and therefore the plaintiff seeks to obtain sufficient documentary evidence from the defendants to put the plaintiff in a position where it is able to make a reasonable assessment of the situation and decide whether to institute an action against the first defendant and/or such other parties. This express desire of the plaintiff is but a manifestation of an intention to go on a fishing expedition, in hope that something may get entangled in the net and finding some material upon which a charge could be hung. That is never the purpose of a pre-action discovery order. See ABX Logistics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Overseas Bechtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2003] 7 CLJ 357. It is quite clear that the plaintiff has embarked on a fishing expedition and cast the net wide to seek information and documents from the defendants, which 13 documents the defendants do not have, in the hope of stringing together a possible case against the defendants. That is not the purpose for an order of discovery. Mustil LJ in Berkeley Administration Inc v. McClelland [1990] FSR 381 at p. 383 held that: It is plain ... that the plaintiff just does not believe anything that the defendants have said in the course of this discovery, and would like to hunt around the documents in the hope that something useful would turn up enabling them to controvert what the defendants have said on oath. That is not what discovery is about at all. The plaintiff is not entitled to an order for discovery of documents based on some hunch or intuition that the defendants have committed some wrongful or fraudulent acts against the plaintiff. The law on discovery is well settled ie, in the absence of a proper basis for an order for discovery, disclosure should not be allowed. [27] The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have committed some fraudulent or wrongful acts. In this regard, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving fraud, improper conduct or negligence against the defendants. Now, it is trite that an order of discovery will not be made, where the effect of such an order would have the effect of shifting the burden of proving fraud or impropriety from the plaintiff to the defendants. Not only is the plaintiff seeking to shift the burden of proof, it is also seeking to incriminate the defendants. In such circumstance, an order of discovery cannot be made… [Emphasis added]

On this ground too, I can dismiss the Originating Summons. A pre - action discovery application is frivolous and an abuse of the court process if the documents sought are already in the plaintiff’s possession or can be obtained from public records like the CCM

In List A of the Originating Summons, the plaintiff had prayed that the defendants produce the following documents :- b) Permits and / or letters of approvals issued by KDN and / or any other government agencies to bring in or renew foreign workers connected to the business of the late Goy whether in the Companies or otherwise [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]. l) Grant or details of cars bought with the monies from the business of the late Goy, including Toyota Alphard No. WXN3136 whether registered in the name of the company or the name of the First Defendant or his representative. [note - the translation by the plaintiff set out in his Written Submissions is inaccurate. I have amended the translation]; and n) Statement of account, payment proof and all documentation regarding the sale of the condominium Atmosfera.

The 1st defendant contends that as these documents are already in the plaintiff’s possession or can be obtained from public records like the CCM, a pre-action discovery is an abuse of process. [See Enclosure 11 Defendant’s Written Submissions paragraph 30 - 34].

I agree. In Yap Sin Moy v Pembinaan YSL Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 972 Noorin Badaruddin J said -

It is therefore frivolous and unnecessary for the Plaintiff to seek prayers 1(a), 1(c), 1(g), 1(i), 2 (a), 2(c), 2 (g) and 2 (m) of the OS as they are in actual fact in the Plaintiff's possession. It is further found that numerous documents sought by the Plaintiff are documents that can be obtained from the public records kept with the CCM to which the Plaintiff admits and as such there is no necessity for the Plaintiff to seek for the documents by filing this OS. Further, as to some of the management documents of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it is doubted whether the Plaintiff is entitled to such documents as she is only a shareholder of the companies. The OS is indeed an abuse of the court's process. [Emphasis added] A pre-action discovery application for documents of a company will be dismissed if the director is a defendant to the application but not the company

This ground was not raised by counsel. However, it is relevant. The documents are considered company property rather than personal property of the directors. It is based on the principle that a company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders and directors established in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. [See Lai Fee & Anor v Wong Yu Vee & Ors [2023] 3 MLJ 503 at 517 & 518 FC and Sara Yasmin bt Sekh Mohd Ruzi v Hamaludin bin Ali & Ors [2022] MLJU 522].

In the instant case before me, all the 14 companies are not defendants before me. The plaintiff cannot ask this court to grant an order to compel the 1st defendant to produce documents that belong to these 14 companies.

It is also trite law that all parties affected by a court order must be made defendants to a court action. The Court of Appeal in Saujana Resort (M) Bhd v Chin Cheen Foh & Ors And Another Appeal [2021] 3 CLJ 71 CA through Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera JCA held at – [41] … It is trite that in an application for declaration, all parties who would potentially be affected by such an order must be before the court. An action for a declaration is an important device for ascertaining and determining the rights of parties. And it is settled that when a declaratory order is sought, all interested parties must be before the court. See dicta of Viscount Maugham in London Passenger Transport Board v. Moscrop [1942] AC 332 at 345 (HL) which was adopted by the Supreme Court in Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor v. Kajing Tubek & Ors And Other Appeals [1997] 4 CLJ 253 p. 282 vide Lord Radcliffe’s observation in Ibeneweka v. Egbuna [1964] 1 WLR 219, p. 226. See also Chor Phaik Har & Ors v. Choong Lye Hock Estates Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 4 CLJ 141 CA; Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam v. Director General of Trades Unions & Ors [1990] 2 CLJ 405; [1990] 2 CLJ (Rep) 218 HC; and Chia Saw Kee & Anor v. Huah Leong Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2003] 8 CLJ 124 HC for an application of this principle. [Emphasis added] [33] On this ground also, I can dismiss the Originating Summons. The documents sought to be discovered must be specified or sufficiently described and the applicant must satisfy the court that the documents sought are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise in the intended proceedings [34] The documents sought to be discovered must be specified or sufficiently described and the applicant must satisfy the court that the documents sought are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise in the intended proceedings. [See Order 24 Rule 7A (3b) Rules of Court 2012. [35] Pre - action discovery will not be ordered if these two conditions are not met by the plaintiff. [Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Heo [2017] 6 MLJ 363 CA at paragraph [38]]. The documents prayed in Senarai A para a, b, f, h - m are not specified or sufficiently described in breach of Order 24 Rule 7A (3b) Rules of Court 2012 [36] The 1st defendant contends that the following documents prayed in List A para a, b, f, h - m are not specified or sufficiently described in breach of Order 24 Rule 7A (3b) Rules of Court 2012. - a. List of the foreign workers in the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant. b. Permits and / or letters of approvals issued by KDN and / or any other government agencies to bring in or renew foreign workers connected to the business of the late Goy whether in the Companies or otherwise. c. All contracts signed with employers in relation to the supply of foreign workers by the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant. d. Income tax forms of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant. e. Bank Statements of the First Defendant held by the first defendant and / or joint name with other party; f. Bank Statements of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; g. Financial Statement of the Companies and / or any company controlled / owned by the first defendant; h. Grant or details of cars bought with the monies from the business of the late Goy, including Toyota Alphard No. WXN3136 whether registered in the name of the company or the name of the first defendant or his representative; i. Car grant of other cars purchased with the money of the late Goy whether registered in the name of the company or the name of the first defendant or his representative. [Emphasis added] [37] I agree with the 1st Defendant’s Submissions. Such an objection was upheld in Yap Sin Moy v Pembinaan YSL Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 972. Noorin Badaruddin J said – [37] It is also observed that the prayers sought by the Plaintiff are too wide wherein in prayers (1) and (2) of the OS, the Plaintiff is stating that what she is asking "tidak terhad kepada dokumen-dokumen seperti berikut." Such prayer connotes that the Plaintiff does not even know whether those documents are in existence and in the Defendant's possession. It is wholly inappropriate for this Court to order for the discovery of documents which are too wide and uncertain. [Emphasis added] Certain documents prayed in List A are not relevant to an issue arising or likely arise in the intended proceedings [38] The 1st defendant contends that the documents prayed in List A paragraph (g) and (i) are not relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise in the intended proceedings - g. Individual income tax forms of the first defendant; i. Bank Statements of the first defendant held by the first defendant and / or joint name with other party [39] To my mind, these documents are not relevant to the plaintiff’s intended actions for oppression or derivative action. [40] On the whole, I find the plaintiff indiscriminate in the categories of documents sought from the 1st defendant. Such a scatter gun or machine gun approach hoping for a lucky strike amounts to an oppressive application which the Court will not condone or tolerate. Decision [41] I dismiss the Plaintiff’s Originating Summons for Pre - Action discovery with costs of RM 5,000 to the 1st defendant subject to allocatur. ………(signed)....………. Leong Wai Hong Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCVC 10) Dated: 13th October 2023 COUNSEL: 1) Foo Wen Cong for plaintiff. (Foo & Chan (Kuala Lumpur)) 2) SP Soo Hoo and Tan Jun Jie for first defendant. (Soo Hoo & Company (Johor Bahru)) CASES REFERRED TO: 1) ABX Logistics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Overseas Bechtel (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2003] 7 CLJ 357. 2) Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bandar Utama 1 JMB [2018] 4 MLRA 345 CA, [2019] 10 CLJ 516 CA & [2018] MLJU 697 CA. 3) Berkeley Administration Inc v. McClelland [1990] FSR 381. 4) Billion Prima Sdn Bhd & Anor v Nutech Company Ltd & Anor [2017] 1 CLJ 179 & [2017] 10 MLJ 213. 5) Chia Saw Kee & Anor v. Huah Leong Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2003] 8 CLJ 124 HC. 6) Chor Phaik Har & Ors v. Choong Lye Hock Estates Sdn Bhd & Ors [1996] 4 CLJ 141 CA. 7) Ibeneweka v. Egbuna [1964] 1 WLR 219. 8) Infoline Sdn Bhd (sued as trustee of Tee Keong Family Trust) v Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 6 MLJ 363 CA, [2017] 8 CLJ 554 CA & [2017] 4 MLRA 203 CA. 9) Kesatuan Sekerja Pembuatan Barangan Galian Bukan Logam v. Director General of Trades Unions & Ors [1990] 2 CLJ 405; [1990] 2 CLJ (Rep) 218 HC. 10) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar & Anor v. Kajing Tubek & Ors And Other Appeals [1997] 4 CLJ 253. 11) Lai Fee & Anor v Wong Yu Vee & Ors [2023] 3 MLJ 503 at 517 & 518 FC. 12) London Passenger Transport Board v. Moscrop [1942] AC 332. 13) Ong Commodities Pte Ltd v Kek Tek Huat Sdn Bhd & Anor [2015] 10 CLJ 585 HC. 14) Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. 15) Sara Yasmin bt Sekh Mohd Ruzi v Hamaludin bin Ali & Ors [2022] MLJU 522. 16) Saujana Resort (M) Bhd v Chin Cheen Foh & Ors And Another Appeal [2021] 3 CLJ 71 CA. 17) Senibong Cove Property Management Services Sdn Bhd v Lembaga Penilai, Pentaksir, Ejen Harta Tanah Dan Pengurus Harta [2022] 8 CLJ 484. 18) Sharifah Sofia bt Syed Hussein (representing Hak Asasi Hidupan Liar Malaysia Global) & Ors v Pengarah Kepada Lembaga Kebajikan Haiwan [2022] 7 CLJ 267 HC & [2022] 12 MLJ 37 HC & [2023] 1 MLRH 691 HC. 19) Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75. 20) Yap Sin Moy v Pembinaan YSL Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] 1 LNS 972. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Order 24 Rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012. 2) Order 24 Rule 7A (3b) Rules of Court 2012.