Sunmaju Sdn Bhd v Teng Thiam Foo (WA-23NCvC-34-05/2025)

TENG THIAM FOO (NRIC No.:891113-14-6033)

CHAN HOOI LENG (NRIC No.:900127-14-6028)

INTER MARINE ENERGY SDN BHD DEFENDANTS [Company Registration No.: 202101043773 (1444073-X)] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Plaintiff's Application for Discovery against the Defendants under Enclosure 250)

Before me is the Plaintiff's application under Enc. 250 dated 7.1.2026 ("the NOA") for the discovery of documents against all Defendants pursuant to Order 24 Rules 3, 7 and 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012") and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The documents sought are specified across twelve items in Schedule A to the NOA and they are the following: Research and Application for Discovery against Dendrobiums SCHEDULEA No.Document or Class of Document1.Correspondences, minutes of meetings and all records of communication including emails, letters and text messaging between the 1st Defendant and Petron Malaysia, including Petron Fuel International Sdn Bhd, regarding the requests) by the 1st Defendant and/or 2nd Defendant (whether on her own behalf or on behalf of the 3rd Defendant) that Petron Malaysia issue letters of support in support of the 3rd Defendant's application to the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living of Malaysia for licences pursuant to the Petroleum Development Act 1974 and the Control of Supplies Act 1961 for years 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.2.Correspondences and all records of communications including emails, letters and text messaging between the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant relating to the 1st Defendant's payment of RM75,00 being the licence application fee for the 3rd Defendant's application for licence pursuant to the Petroleum Development Act 1974 to the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living of Malaysia.3.The full exchange of correspondences between the 3rd Defendants and Petron Malaysia, including Petron Fuel International Sdn Bhd concerning the letter dated 20.5.2025 from Petron Fuel International Sdn Bhd to the 3rd Defendant regarding Petron Fuel International Sdn Bhd's intention to revoke the letters of support provided to the 3rd Defendant for the 3rd Defendant's application for statutory licenses.4.Correspondences and all records of communications including emails, letters and text messaging between the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant relating to the financial assistance or "loan" provided by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant in the sum of RM40,000.00. Practice registration for Discovery against Contestants No.Document or Class of Document(c) Sungar Jan Kunh Sdn Bhd (Company no. 199701022807 (437884-H));(d) Somaik Prima Sdn Bhd (Company no. 202201014518 (1400510-D));(e) Huat Lai Resources Bentad (Company no. 169401937508 (833273-T));(f) Huat Lai Broiler Breeders Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200101020772 (598529-D));(g) Huat Lai Feedmill Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200401000763 (841254-D));(h) Ment Partners Sdn Bhd (Company no. 201601027735 (1106074-X));(i) Euro Saga Sdn Bhd (Company no. 169801027546 (858750-U));(j) Tack Ping Chan Agriculture Sdn Bhd (Company no. 187801004908 (41013-X));(k) Tragia Malaysia Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200701031847 (788674-V)) and(l) CMNM Mining Group Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200901037931 (787691-MI))5.A list of all customers of the S+H Delivered from 22.12.2021 until the date of the Order or for such other period the Honorable Court deems fit. Military Applications for Discovery against Deteriorates No.Document or Class of Document5.Correspondences and all records of communications including emails, letters and text messaging between the 1st Defendant and China Communications Construction Company (M) Sdn Bhd ("China CCC Sdn Bhd") relating to the application by the 3rd Defendant to register itself as a vendor of China CCC Sdn Bhd and/or for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project.6.The supporting documents provided to China CCC Sdn Bhd by the 3rd Defendant in respect of the 3rd Defendant's net profits for the years of 2021, 2022 and 2023 when the 3rd Defendant applies to register itself as a vendor of China CCC Sdn Bhd and/or for the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) project.2.Correspondences and all records of communications including emails, letters and text messaging between the 1st Defendant and Petron Malaysia regarding the 1st Defendants' request for Petron Malaysia's ISO Certifications of Petron Malaysia's terminal located at Port Dickson, Nagen Sembasa on or around 20.11.2024.3.General and/or internalagers, sales records, invoices, purchase orders and delivery orders in respect of the wholesale, resale, sale, distribution and delivery of petroleum products including petrol and diesel by the 3rd Defendant to the following companies who are existing customers of the Plantaf, from 22.12.2021 until the date of the Order or for such other period this Reconducible Court deems fit :(a) Bake Juvenia Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200101000251 (542007-T));(b) HLRB Broiler Farm Sdn Bhd (Company no. 200801036705 (753464-L)). Marketing Application for Discovery against Defeasures No.Document or Class of Document10.Unadopted bank statements of the 3rd Defendant's People's Bank Bermed Account No., 3227061709 from 28.12.2021 until the date of the Order or for such other period this Honourable Court declares it.11.The audited financial statements of the 3rd Defendant for the financial years of 2022 and 2024.12.Documents and records of the 3rd Defendant including invoices, receipts and expense claims which were provided to the 3rd Defendants external auditors for the audit and preparation of the 3rd Defendant's audited financial statements for the years of 2022, 2023 and 2024 showing the basis, details and breakdown of the following:

total revenue of the 3rd Defendant's business;

costs of sales;

administrative expenses; and

net profit. ---

The Plaintiff is an established commercial fuel wholesaler, distributor and transporter of petroleum products. The 1st Defendant is a director and former de facto managing director of the Plaintiff and the husband of the 2nd Defendant, who was formerly employed by the Plaintiff as an accounting and sales executive. The 3rd Defendant is a company incorporated by the 2nd Defendant to engage in the wholesale, resale and distribution of the same petroleum products as those sold by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's claim in the underlying suit alleges, in essence, that the 1st and 2nd Defendants breached their statutory and/or fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff, misused the Plaintiff's confidential information and trade secrets, and conspired to injure the Plaintiff by secretly setting up the 3rd Defendant as a competing entity and diverting the Plaintiff's customers to it. The Defendants deny these allegations, and each has filed counterclaims.

In Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 HC, Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ (as his Lordship then was) held that three requirements must be met: 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 is sought.

On relevance, the learned judge explained that discovery is limited to documents which are "relevant to" or "relate to" the factual issues in dispute. Relevance is primarily determined by reference to the pleadings, but there need not be a specific pleading for a matter to be said to be in issue.

This principle was reiterated and elaborated upon in Allimi bin Udin v TWA (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] CLJU 3329 HC, where I emphasised the applicable test at the pleadings stage, by reference to the causes of action pleaded and the defences raised. A document is relevant if it relates to matters that the applicant must prove or that the opponent has put in issue by his defence. The question is simply whether, taking the pleadings at face value, the documents sought are relevant to the issues raised.

In addition to the three requirements, Order 24 Rule 8 ROC 2012 empowers the Court to dismiss or adjourn an application for discovery if satisfied that discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage, either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.

The significance of the discovery process was aptly described by the UK Court of Appeal in Davies v Eli Lilly & Co and Ors [1987] 1 WLR 428, cited with approval by the High Court in Rotta Research Laboratorium SpA & Anor v Ho Tack Sien & Ors [2010] 8 MLJ 733 HC where litigation under the common law system is conducted "cards face up on the table", designed to do real justice between opposing parties, and if the court does not have all the relevant information, it cannot achieve this object.

I note at the outset that the 2nd Defendant did not dispute the document request for Item 1 of Schedule A in either her affidavit in reply (Enc. 277) or in the 2nd and 3rd Defendants' Submissions (Enc. 301). In the circumstances, discovery under Item 1 ought to be allowed as against the 2nd Defendant.

The 1st Defendant's central objection to Items 1 and 5 of Schedule A is that the documents sought go beyond the Plaintiff's pleaded case. Specifically, the 1st Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's case is limited to the procurement of the letter of support for the PDA 4 licence on or around 29.3.2022 (Item 1) and the preparation and/or submission of tender documents for the ECRL Project (Item 5), and that the Plaintiff cannot now seek documents relating to other letters of support or to the vendor registration application.

The 1st Defendant relies on Empire Holdings Ltd v Ithmaar Development Co Ltd & Ors [2025] 1 MLJ 192 CA and other authorities for the proposition that parties are bound by their pleadings.

I do not find this objection persuasive. It is true that parties are bound by their pleadings. However, the 1st Defendant conflates two distinct principles: the rule that parties cannot adduce evidence on matters not pleaded at trial, and the test of relevancy for purposes of discovery. These are not the same thing.

The test of relevancy for discovery purposes, as established in Yekambaran and reiterated in Allimi, is broader than the scope of evidence admissible at trial. A document is relevant for discovery purposes if it relates to the factual issues in dispute or issues raised in the pleadings. There need not be a specific pleading for a matter to be said to be in issue.

This position was reinforced by the High Court in IDB Interactive Sdn Bhd v Online E-Club Management Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 7 MLJ 349 HC where it was held that it is not necessary for a party to plead the specific facts before being entitled to seek discovery, so long as it can be demonstrated that the documents sought relate to matters or issues raised in the pleadings and may directly or indirectly enable the party to advance its own case or damage the opponent's case.

Here, the Plaintiff has pleaded at paragraphs 42(a) and 42(b) of the Amended Statement of Claim that the 1st Defendant had, in breach of his statutory and/or fiduciary duties, assisted, facilitated and/or participated in the setting up of the 3rd Defendant and its business. The procurement of letters of support from Petron Malaysia for the 3rd Defendant's licence applications, and the 1st Defendant's involvement in the vendor registration of the 3rd Defendant with China CCC Sdn Bhd for the ECRL Project, are plainly connected to this broader allegation.

The documents sought under Items 1 and 5 are relevant to the factual issues raised in the pleadings concerning the extent of the 1st Defendant's involvement in setting up and facilitating the 3rd Defendant's competing business. They may directly or indirectly enable the Plaintiff to advance its case or damage the Defendants' defence, or lead to a train of inquiry that has either of those consequences.

Accordingly, I reject the 1st Defendant's objection based on the scope of pleadings. The documents sought under Items 1 and 5 satisfy the relevancy requirement for discovery.

The 1st and 2nd Defendants resist discovery of the documents sought under Items 2 and 4 on the basis that they are communications between spouses protected by marital privilege under s 122 of the Evidence Act 1950 ("EA 1950"). S 122 EA 1950 provides: "No person who is or has been married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication unless the person who made it or his representative in interest consents, except in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other."

The Defendants contend that the provision creates a blanket prohibition against the disclosure of all communications between spouses (see: Su Tiang Joo v Chai Ah Ming [2021] 1 LNS 2398 HC and Pangsapuri Anda Management & Ors v Pembinaan Safilo Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 175 HC).

The Plaintiff advances three arguments:

S 122 EA 1950 only prohibits a recipient from disclosing communications "made to him" by his spouse, and does not prevent the communicator-spouse from disclosing his or her own communications;

the privilege does not extend to communications made by a spouse on behalf of a third party; and

the privilege has been waived by the 1st Defendant by exhibiting parts of the WhatsApp communications in Exhibit TTF-15. My analysis

The plain language of s 122 EA 1950 states that no married person "shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married" (emphasis added). On a plain and ordinary reading, the prohibition operates on the recipient of the communication. The recipient cannot be compelled to disclose what was communicated to him by the spouse.

The Plaintiff's reliance on the Singapore High Court decisions in Systematic Airconditioning Pte Ltd v Ho Seng Ken [2023] SGHC 10 and Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard Lilia [2023] 3 SLR 1014, both of which interpreted s 124 of the Singapore Evidence Act 1893 (which is in pari materia with s 122 EA 1950) as protecting only the recipient from being compelled to disclose, and not preventing the communicator-spouse from voluntarily disclosing his or her own communications. The courts there also held that the privilege does not apply where the communication was made by a spouse acting as agent of a third party.

The Defendants rely on Su Tiang Joo (supra) where the Court upheld marital privilege over WhatsApp conversations between husband and wife. However, I note that in Su Tiang Joo, the court was not invited to examine the specific question of whether the privilege applies to communications made on behalf of a third party, nor was the distinction between the communicator and recipient spouse analysed. In Pangsapuri Anda Management, it similarly sets out only the general principle that privileged documents cannot be discovered; marital communication privilege was not a specific issue in that case.

I find that Systematic Airconditioning and Enjin Pte Ltd to be persuasive and applicable to s 122 EA 1950, given the in pari materia nature of the provisions. The evidence before me of the 1st Defendant's Exhibit TTF-15 demonstrates the following:

For Item 2, the 2nd Defendant requested that the 1st Defendant pay the sum of RM75.00 to the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living, being the fee for the 3rd Defendant's licence application. The payment was made specifically for the benefit of the 3rd Defendant's business. The 2nd Defendant, as the sole director and 60% majority shareholder of the 3rd Defendant, was plainly communicating on behalf of the 3rd Defendant in its commercial affairs.

For Item 4, the 2nd Defendant requested that the 1st Defendant transfer RM49,000.00 directly to the 3rd Defendant's bank account. The 2nd Defendant stated the funds were needed to "settle some payments." The fact that the funds were directed to be paid into the 3rd Defendant's bank account, rather than the 2nd Defendant's personal account, strongly indicates that the communication was made by the 2nd Defendant on behalf of the 3rd Defendant.

In these circumstances, the communications in question are not conjugal in nature but relate to the commercial affairs of the 3rd Defendant and were made by the 2nd Defendant in her capacity as director and majority shareholder of the 3rd Defendant, acting on behalf of that company. I find that the marital communication privilege under s 122 EA 1950 does not extend to such communications. To hold otherwise would allow the privilege to be used as a shield to prevent the discovery of evidence relating to commercial wrongdoing merely because the alleged wrongdoers happen to be married. That cannot have been the legislative intent of s 122 EA 1950.

I am further satisfied that the 1st Defendant has, by exhibiting the extracts of WhatsApp communications in Exhibit TTF-15, waived the privilege in respect of those communications. Having voluntarily disclosed portions of the communications to advance his case, it would be inequitable to allow him to rely on privilege to prevent the remaining communications on the same subject matter from being disclosed.

For the foregoing reasons, I reject the Defendants' objection based on marital communication privilege in respect of Items 2 and 4.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants contend that the documents sought under Items 6,8,9,10,11 and 12 relate solely to the quantum of damages, account of profits and/or assessment of damages, and are therefore irrelevant and premature at this stage. They rely on the Federal Court decision in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v Petroliam Nasional Bhd and other appeals [2014] 6 MLJ 31 FC and Island Records Ltd v Tring International plc [1995] 3 All ER 444.

I do not accept this contention for the following reasons.

Items 6,11 and 12 - Relevance to the Defendants' counterclaims

Items 6,11 and 12 are relevant not only to quantum but also to the issue arising from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants' respective counterclaims. The Defendants allege in their counterclaims that the Plaintiff misrepresented the 3rd Defendant's total net profits for the years 2021,2022,and 2023 as RM12,430,000.00 in its application for an interim injunction, and that they suffered loss as a result. The documents sought under Items 6,11 and 12 are directly relevant to the truth and veracity of this allegation, which is a matter going to the Defendants' own counterclaims.

A party who counterclaims for damages arising from alleged misrepresentation cannot, in the same breath, resist the discovery of documents which would enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the representation in question. The Plaintiff is entitled to defend itself against the counterclaims, and the documents sought are relevant and necessary for that purpose.

(ii) Items 8,9 and 10 - Relevance to the issue of customer diversion

Items 8,9 and 10 are relevant to the issue of whether the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants diverted the Plaintiff's customers to the 3rd Defendant, which is a central issue of liability pleaded in Paragraphs 35 to 38 and 43A of the Amended Statement of Claim. The transactional records, customer list and bank statements of the 3rd Defendant would reveal the extent of the alleged customer diversion, the identity of the customers transacted with, and the volume of such transactions. These go to liability, not merely quantum.

I am mindful of the Federal Court's decision in Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, which held that documents relating solely to quantum should not be discovered before the determination of liability. However, Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan is distinguishable by its facts. In that case, there was a clear separation between the issue of liability (to be determined under Order 14A ROC 2012) and the issue of quantum. Here, no order for bifurcation has been made. The trial is to proceed on both liability and quantum together. In these circumstances, I agree with the principle in RCB Marketing Sdn Bhd v Milano Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 11 MLJ 635 HC, where in the absence of bifurcation, all documents relevant and necessary for the parties to prove their respective claims, counterclaims and defences both in respect of liability and quantum should be disclosed in the process of pre-trial discovery.

Even if I were to accept that some of the documents under Items 8,9,10,11 and 12 relate to quantum, the documents also have a dual relevance to the issue of liability, specifically the diversion of customers and the counterclaim regarding misrepresentation. In such cases, discovery should not be refused merely because the documents may also be relevant to quantum.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants contend that the documents sought involve commercially sensitive materials, including the 3rd Defendant's customer information, business revenue and internal financial records, and that disclosure would impose an unnecessary and disproportionate burden on the Defendants.

Confidentiality alone is not a ground to resist the discovery of documents which are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of proceedings (see: Obnet Sdn Bhd v Telekom Malaysia Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 707 CA). Also, on the demands of justice, discovery can be ordered notwithstanding confidentiality. The Plaintiff is unable to obtain evidence of the purported wrongdoings from the Defendants herein. There can be no other way but to order for the discovery of the requested documents.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants have failed to substantiate their bare assertions of confidentiality with any evidence. The invoices and delivery orders issued by the 3rd Defendant, which are already before the Court, do not contain any confidentiality provisions.

In any event, any concern regarding confidentiality can be adequately addressed by the safeguards available to the Court, including an order that the documents be kept confidential and used solely for the purpose of these proceedings, which is what the Plaintiff has prayed for in Prayer 3 NOA; a protective or sealing order preventing public access to the documents; and reasonable redaction of genuinely sensitive information with leave of Court.

The Defendants assert in respect of several items that no documents exist beyond those already produced. I approach these assertions with reference to Allimi where I had held that existence may be proven by direct evidence, by reasonable inference from surrounding circumstances, or by the opposing party's own conduct or admissions. A bare denial of existence will not necessarily be accepted, particularly where the nature of the transaction or relationship makes it inherently probable that such documents exist.

The email dated 29.3.2022 from Petron Fuel International Sdn Bhd to the 1st Defendant attached the support letter "as requested", indicating a prior request. The letter dated 29.5.2025 from Petron refers to two further letters of support dated 19.3.2025 and 7.4.2025. It is inherently probable that further communications relating to these requests exist. The 1st Defendant's bare denial is not accepted.

As for the 1st Defendant's contention that communications were made via his work email (to which access has been taken away by the Plaintiff), this does not relieve him of the obligation to disclose documents which exist or have existed. The Plaintiff denies having access to the 1st Defendant's email correspondence with Petron Malaysia on this subject matter.

The 3rd Defendant contends that no supporting documents were provided to China CCC Sdn Bhd in respect of its net profits. I find this inherently improbable. The 3rd Defendant, in applying to be registered as a vendor for the ECRL Project, a project of national interest, declared total net profits of RM12,430,000.00 for the years 2021 to 2023 in its vendor profile form. It is inconceivable that no supporting documentation whatsoever was provided to substantiate such a significant financial representation, particularly when the 3rd Defendant did provide supporting documents for all other matters in its vendor application. Item 11-3rd Defendant's AFS for 2024

The 3rd Defendant asserts that its audited financial statements ("AFS") for the financial year ended 31.12.2024 have not been prepared, attributing this to the Plaintiff's interim injunction application filed in May 2025. I find this explanation unpersuasive. The interim injunction was filed on 20.5.2025 and could not possibly have affected the 3rd Defendant's finances for the year ended 31.12.2024. More than nine months have passed since the filing of the injunction application. It is highly improbable that the 3rd Defendant has not prepared its audited financial statements for the financial year ending 31.12.2024 to date.

As for the 3rd Defendant's AFS for 2022, I note these were already disclosed in Enclosure 39. To the extent Item 11 seeks the 2022 AFS, this has been satisfied. Discovery under Item 11 is therefore directed primarily at the 2024 AFS.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants contend that the Discovery Application constitutes an abuse of process, made with collateral purposes of obtaining confidential information, exerting commercial pressure on the 3rd Defendant, and disrupting its business.

The threshold for establishing abuse of process is high and requires clear evidence. In Punitha a/p Padathaly v Salam Alliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 795 HC, it was held that the threshold for abuse of process is high and requires clear evidence, and that no such evidence existed in that case.

Similarly, in Allimi bin Udin, I rejected the allegation of abuse of process, holding that abuse of process requires evidence of improper motive or collateral purpose. By using the court's process not to advance one's claim genuinely but to harass, oppress, or cause unnecessary expense to the opponent.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants have produced no evidence of improper motive or collateral purpose. They rely on bare assertions and speculations. The NOA is a bona fide application for documents which are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the allegation of abuse of process must be rejected. No inordinate delay

The contention that the NOA was filed after an inordinate delay is equally without merit. The application was filed on 7.1.2026, more than a year ahead of the trial dates scheduled from 5.4.2027 to 16.4.2027. No pre-trial directions had yet been issued. Order 24 rules 3 and 7 of the ROC 2012 expressly provide that applications for discovery may be made "at any time."

I agree with the High Court in Eco Horizon Sdn Bhd v Occupants of the Arulmigu Sri Maha Muthu Mariamman Temple & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 697 HC, where the appropriate timing for discovery is once issues have been identified after the close of pleadings, but at the early stages of pre-trial case management before the filing of bundles of documents. The present application was filed squarely within this window. There is no delay, let alone an inordinate one.

The 1st Defendant relies on Kenanga Investors Bhd v Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 8 MLJ 288 HC for the proposition that speculative discovery cannot be permitted when the applicant already has access to the evidence needed to support its allegations. That case is distinguishable. In Kenanga, the applicant already possessed the very cheques it relied upon. Here, the Plaintiff does not have the full communications and records it seeks and has demonstrated through the evidence adduced that further documents exist or are likely to exist.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants' reliance on Heap Lee Chan Trading Company Sdn Bhd v Ng Chiang Chong & Ors [2024] MLJU 1408 HC is also distinguishable. In Heap, the discovery sought was found to be an attempt to obtain confidential business information under the guise of discovery, with no demonstrated nexus to the pleaded issues. Here, the documents sought are directly connected to the pleaded issues of customer diversion, breach of fiduciary duties and the Defendants' own counterclaims.

Each item of the NOA has been identified with reasonable precision, with reference to a particular subject matter and confined to a specific timeframe. This is not an "aimless trawling of an unlimited sea" as described in Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75.

Having considered all submissions and the evidence, I make the following orders:

Item 1- ALLOWED against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The documents are relevant to the issue of the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants' involvement in facilitating the 3rd Defendant's licence applications. The 1st Defendant's bare denial of the existence of further documents is not accepted in light of the evidence showing further requests for letters of support were made.

Item 2- ALLOWED against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Marital privilege does not apply as the communications were made on behalf of the 3rd Defendant in relation to its commercial affairs. Privilege has also been waived by the 1st Defendant's voluntary disclosure.

Item 3- ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The full exchange of correspondences is relevant to the issue of the 1st Defendant's conduct in procuring letters of support. The 3rd Defendant itself acknowledged in its reply to Petron that these matters are the subject of this suit.

Item 4- ALLOWED against the 1st and 2nd Defendants. For the same reasons as Item 2, marital privilege does not apply. The communication was made on behalf of the 3rd Defendant, as evidenced by the direction to pay funds directly into the 3rd Defendant's bank account.

Item 5- ALLOWED against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The documents are relevant to the 1st Defendant's involvement in facilitating the 3rd Defendant's business in relation to the ECRL Project, which is a matter in issue arising from the pleadings.

Item 6 - ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The documents are relevant to the Defendants' counterclaims regarding the alleged misrepresentation of the 3rd Defendant's net profits. The 3rd Defendant's assertion that no such documents exist is inherently improbable.

Item 7 - ALLOWED against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The documents are relevant to the 1st Defendant's involvement in facilitating the 3rd Defendant's vendor registration for the ECRL Project.

Item 8 - ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The documents are relevant to the issue of customer diversion, which goes to liability, not merely quantum. Confidentiality concerns are addressed by the safeguards in Prayer 3 of the Notice of Application.

Item 9 - ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The customer list is relevant and necessary to ascertain the full extent of the alleged diversion of the Plaintiff's customers.

Item 10- ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The unredacted bank statements are relevant to establishing the full scope of the 3rd Defendant's transactions, including with the Plaintiff's customers. The 3rd Defendant itself had previously produced redacted bank statements.

Item 11 ALLOWED IN PART against the 3rd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant's AFS for 2022 having been previously disclosed in Enclosure 39, discovery of that document is not necessary. Discovery is allowed for the 3rd Defendant's AFS for the financial year ended 31.12.2024.

Item 12- ALLOWED against the 3rd Defendant. The documents are relevant to ascertaining the truth and veracity of the 3rd Defendant's financial performance and to the Defendants' counterclaims.

Pursuant to Prayer 3 NOA, I further order that all documents disclosed pursuant to this order shall be kept confidential and used solely for the purpose of these Court proceedings, and shall not be made accessible to the public. The costs of the NOA shall be costs in the cause. Dated: 29 June 2026 Arziah binti Mohamed Apandi Judge Kuala Lumpur High Court NCvC 8 Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Plaintiff Counsel: Ms. Ira Biswas (together with her Mr. Wong Wai Hou (Calvin) and Mr. Kok Jia Qi (Jason) Messrs Chooi & Company Kuala Lumpur Tel. No.: 03-2055 3911 Email: calvinwong@chooi.com.my contact@chooi.com.my 1st. Defendant Counsel:Mr. Nicholas Navaron Chula Messrs Varon Joyce Kuala Lumpur Tel. No.:03-2785 6820 Email: nicholas@varonjoyce.com $ 2^{\mathrm{nd}} $ and 3rd. Defendant Counsel: Ms. Rachel Ng Li Hui (together with her Mr. Teong Jun Hong) Messrs Thomas Philip Kuala Lumpur Tel. No.: 03-6201 5678 Email: rcn@thomasphilip.com.my tp@thomasphilip.com.my Cases referred: Yekambaran s/o Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581 HC Allimi bin Udin v TWA (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] CLJU 3329 HC Davies v Eli Lilly & Co and Ors [1987] 1 WLR 428 Rotta Research Laboratorium SpA & Anor v Ho Tack Sien & Ors [2010] 8 MLJ 733 HC Empire Holdings Ltd v Ithmaar Development Co Ltd & Ors [2025] 1 MLJ 192 CA IDB Interactive Sdn Bhd v Online E-Club Management Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 7 MLJ 349 HC Su Tiang Joo v Chai Ah Ming [2021] 1 LNS 2398 HC Pangsapuri Anda Management & Ors v Pembinaan Safilo Sdn Bhd [2021] 1 LNS 175 HC Systematic Airconditioning Pte Ltd v Ho Seng Ken [2023] SGHC 10 Enjin Pte Ltd v Pritchard Lilia [2023] 3 SLR 1014 Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v Petroliam Nasional Bhd and other appeals [2014] 6 MLJ 31 ("Petroliam") FC Island Records Ltd v Tring International plc [1995] 3 All ER 444 RCB Marketing Sdn Bhd v Milano Marketing Sdn Bhd [2022] 11 MLJ 635 HC Obnet Sdn Bhd v Telekom Malaysia Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 707 CA Punitha a/p Padathaly v Salam Alliance Sdn Bhd & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 795 HC Eco Horizon Sdn Bhd v Occupants of the Arulmigu Sri Maha Muthu Mariamman Temple & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 697 HC Kenanga Investors Bhd v Zulrafq Capital Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 8 MLJ 288 HC Heap Lee Chan Trading Company Sdn Bhd v Ng Chiang Chong & Ors [2024] MLJU 1408 HC Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 75 Acts/Law referred: Order 24 rules 3,7 and 12 of the Rules of Court 2012