Violet Tan Pei LI v Chia Yew Keong (JA-33-462-09/2022)

This is a discovery application by the Respondent Husband (“RH”) via Notice of Application (Enclosure 94) mainly to have access to an extensive list of fourteen (14) categories of documents from S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A the Petitioner Wife (“PW”), including payslips, directors’ fees, bank statements, tax returns, CPF/EPF statements, insurance policies, shareholdings, investments, movable assets, foreign properties, domestic and international real estate holdings, and trust-held assets under Order 24 Rules 10, 11 and/or 16 of Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”).

After having read the Affidavits, written submissions by both the RH and the Petitioner Wife (“PW”), and after having heard the oral submissions of the parties, I allowed the RH’s application in part with costs of RM 3,000.00 subject to allocator costs, to be paid by the RH to the PW within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order.

Below are my grounds of the decision.

The brief facts which are relevant to the present application are as follows:

on 07.09.2022, PW filed a divorce petition under section 53 and 54 of Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164] seeking a dissolution of her marriage to RH, and other prayers;

trial dates were fixed, and both parties were required to prepare a Common Bundle of Documents for trial;

subsequently, on 23.10.2024, RH filed Enclosure 94.

In brief, the RH submitted as follows:

the PW had not fully disclosed her financial position; and S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

the RH sought extensive disclosure, including:

payslips, director fees, financial statements of companies linked to the PW;

(ii) bank statements (Malaysia, Singapore, Australia);

(iii) income tax records, CPF/EPF statements;

(iv) investments, insurance policies; and

rental income from identified properties.

On the contrary, the PW contended that—

substantial documents had already been disclosed;

certain requested documents were not in her possession, custody or power to disclose;

the RH’s application was a fishing expedition and oppressive in nature; and

most requested documents were irrelevant. COURT ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

I have identified two (2) issues below for the determination of this

whether the RH had shown sufficient grounds to compel further discovery from the PW; and

whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity of PW. S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A Principles of law applicable to discovery proceedings 8. The relevant provisions governing and concerning discovery proceedings are the ones as set out in the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). Order 24 of the ROC 2012 states as follows: “Order for production to Court (O. 24 r. 12)

At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the Court may, subject to rule 13(1), order any party to produce to the Court any document in his possession, custody or power relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter that falls within one of the following descriptions:

documents on which the party relies or will rely;

documents which could—

adversely affect a party’s case; or

(ii) support a party’s case; and

documents which may lead to a series of inquiry resulting in the obtaining of information which may—

adversely affect a party’s case; or

(ii) support a party’s case.

The Court may deal with the documents when produced in pursuance of an order made under paragraph (1) in such manner as it thinks fit.

Production to be ordered only if necessary (O. 24, r. 13)

An order for the production of any documents for inspection or to the Court shall not be made under any of the foregoing rules unless the Court is of the opinion that the order is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

Where on an application under this Order for production of any document for inspection or to the Court, privilege from such production is claimed or objection is made to such production on any other ground, the Court may inspect the document for the purpose of deciding whether the claim or objection is valid.”. [Emphasis added]

It is incumbent on the party applying to satisfy this court that the discovery is relevant and necessary to dispose a cause fairly. The principle above is decided in the case of Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2020] MLJU 1421 where the Court of Appeal held that “relevancy” arises when a particular document relates to the factual issues in disputes and stated as follows: “[173] Further, in regards to the critical question of “relevance” Edgar Joseph Jr said (at page 585 of the CLJ report): 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. More particularly, the discovery obligation applies to documents “relating to matters in question in the action” [Rules of the High Court, O. 24, r. 1(1)] or “relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter” [O. 24, r. 3(1)]. In practice, relevance is primarily determined by reference to the pleadings but there need not be a pleading for a matter to be said to be in issue. (See Phillips v. Phillips [1879] 40 LT 815, 821. In this context, relevance is defined broadly. It does not extend to documents relevant merely to a party’s credibility unless that itself is a fact in issue. (See George Ballantine & Sons Ltd. v. Dixon & Son S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A Ltd.[1974] 1 WLR 1125). If, however, the document’s relevance is to a fact in issue, not simply to credibility, it has long been settled that relevance of an indirect kind suffices.”. [Emphasis added]

Thus, applying the principles above, it can be emphasized that RH does not have a free-standing right to discovery under Order 24 of the ROC but it is within the discretion of the court. The RH must first establish the following requirements:

that the documents sought exists;

(ii) that identify the documents sought with sufficient precision;

(iii) that the documents sought are material and relevant to the present case;

(iv) that the documents sought must be or have been in the possession, custody or power of the PW; and

that the documents sought are necessary for a fair disposal of the matter or saving costs.

The PW has contended the filing of Enclosure 94 claiming that RH Affidavit in Support should be inadmissible by the Court as where the jurat to be adopted failed to state whether interpretation was necessary for the RH who only has a limited proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia.

Thus, the failure to set out the correct jurat in the Affidavit in Support is fatal and as such there is no affidavit in support of Enclosure 94, hence PW prayed that Enclosure 94 be dismissed in limine. S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

Whether the RH had shown sufficient grounds to compel further discovery from the PW To answer this issue, I refer to Enclosure 94 which seek to obtain an Order for the discovery of payslips, director fees, financial statements of companies linked to the PW, bank statements (Malaysia, Singapore, Australia), income tax records, CPF/EPF statements, investments, insurance policies and rental income from identified properties.

The PW said that they had complied by furnishing some of the requested documents to the RH solicitors and further stated that at all material times, the remaining requested documents are not in the possession, custody and power of the PW.

The reasons given by the RH were that the documents requested shows the financial standing of the PW as it is material and relevant to the case at hand.

This rather looks like a tactical manoeuvre as contended by the PW that the discovery application was a fishing expedition and mala fide, which results in a waste of the Court’s time and ought to be punished by costs being ordered against the RH.

Pre-action discovery serves the purpose of assisting the RH to determine if he has a viable cause of action. It is not to allow him to have a complete picture of the case he intends to bring nor is it intended to enable him to augment her case.

That being the case, there is also need to take into consideration particularly where the discovery involves such extensive documents. In so deciding, I have borne in mind the provisions S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A of Order 24 rule 8 of ROC 2012, which provides that the Court can refuse to make an order for discovery if it considers that to be unnecessary at this stage as the parties are already ready for trial.

On this point I found instructive the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Ching Mun Fong v. Standard Chartered Bank [2012] 4 SLR 185 which held the following: “[23] Thus, the scheme of pre-action discovery is to accommodate the situation where a potential plaintiff does not have sufficient facts to commence proceedings. This is consistent with its purpose being to allow a potential plaintiff to determine whether he has a "good cause of action". It follows that pre-action discovery is unnecessary where an individual is in a position to commence proceedings. In this regard, we think the phrase in O. 24 r. 7, "discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the cause or matter" lends weight to this approach...”. [Emphasis added]

This legal position in respect of pre-action discovery was reiterated in Dorsey James Michael v. World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 4 [2014] 2 SLR 208, where Justice VK Rajah held— “The utility and benefits of this procedure, however, must be calibrated against the fact that pre-action disclosure of any sort is quintessentially intrusive in nature - especially when it involves individuals who may ultimately not (or cannot) be parties to the litigation. These non-parties, who may eventually be witnesses in the main proceedings, should not be unnecessarily inconvenienced, embarrassed or prejudiced by these disclosure requirements prematurely. An application has to be confined to what is strictly necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs in the pending or potential proceedings. Deep-sea fishing must be discouraged. Most crucially, in the final analysis, the S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A making of any order must be "just" in all the circumstances....”. [Emphasis added]

I further refer to the case of Hajjah Yan Mohd Nordin v. Cimb Bank Berhad & Ors [2022] CLJU 572; [2022] 1 LNS 572 where in referring to the discretion of the Court with regards to a discovery application, the judge explained as follows: “[41] I observe that the documents which are the subject matter of the discovery is far too extensive considering the period it relates to. These are documents which span a 26-years period. The documents sought to be discovered are too burdensome to comply with if an order is given. The financial institutions have averred in their affidavits that they do not keep documents beyond 7 years. The Defendants cannot be made to make discovery of documents that are not in their possession. (See: Yekambaram Marimuthu v. Malayawata Steel Bhd [1994] 2 CLJ 581). [42] Further the documents are too numerous as to suggest that it is but a fishing expedition. The discovery application cannot be a fishing expedition as to do so would be an abuse of the process of the court. The fact that D11 has been cited as BANK-BANK YANG BELUM DIKENALPASTI suggests that the Plaintiff is uncertain and seeks to cast the net far and wide to see if something of value can be discovered.”. [Emphasis added]

Based on the authorities above, the Court will allow the application for discovery if the documents sought are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs in the pending or potential proceedings.

In the instant case, the main issues to be determined by the Court are the distribution of the matrimonial assets, and payment of maintenance of the child and spouse. Therefore, I find some of S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A the documents sought by the RH are relevant to those issues and will assist to determine the financial status of the PW.

It can clearly be seen that the PW had already furnished some of the documents requested by the RH to the RH’s solicitors.

Through the evidences presented by way of Affidavits filed by both parties, I find that the RH’s application sought fourteen (14) broad categories of documents, many spanning several countries and multiple years, including assets and accounts that the PW denied owning or having access to.

The PW submitted that she was unemployed from 2020 to August 2024 and therefore had no payslips to adduce.

Further, the PW had stated that the PW did not receive any director fees from Spice Ventures Sdn. Bhd. and Paragon Group Pte Ltd., and therefore no records and receipts of director's fees were adduced.

However, this goes to show that the PW does not deny that she is a shareholder and/or director, specifically for Paragon Group Pte Ltd. and Spice Ventures Sdn. Bhd.

The financial statements of companies in which the PW is acknowledged to be were expressly referred to in the parties’ affidavits, exist within the PW’s power, and are relevant to assessment of the PW’s financial capacity. They were also acknowledged in prior correspondence and in the RH’s affidavit.

The RH further submits that the PW had stated that she did not receive any rental income in reference to the property as listed by the RH in their discovery application. S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

However, no evidence to support this assertion has been presented by the PW and furthermore, it was acknowledged and admitted by the PW in paragraph 4 of her Affidavit-In-Reply (Enclosure 30) that the property is owned by PW.

Upon perusing all the affidavits and written submissions filed by the parties, I find that the PW has complied with the furnishing of some of the documents as has been requested by the RH.

However, since ownership of the Straits View Property and the Paragon Residence Property was expressly admitted by the PW in paragraph 4 of her Affidavit-In-Reply (Enclosure 30) dated 13.03.2023, and the rental income is relevant to the PW’s financial means and is known to the PW at all material times, by PW’s own account, I rule that the monthly rental income details for—

HSD 604469 PTB 24794, Johor Bahru (Straits View

Parcel A-26-07, Tower A, Paragon Residences. be furnished to the RH.

The PW, in her Affidavit-In-Support (Enclosure 30), had adduced/averred that she held both assets. As such, the irresistible inference was that the PW had indeed knowledge of the monthly rental income details for both properties, and, hence, it was inequitable for this Court not to allow for the discovery for these documents as they are founded on undisputed facts. Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary to determine matrimonial assets and financial capacity of PW S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

I accept the PW’s contention that the majority of the requests of the RH are far too wide, insufficiently connected to pleaded issues, unsupported by specific evidence, and amount to a general trawl of her financial history.

A number of items requested such as luxury goods, overseas properties, trust assets, foreign tax filings, and bank accounts allegedly held in Australia and Singapore are not supported by prima facie evidence and were not pleaded with sufficient particularity.

The breadth of requested documents, some going back to 2020, is unnecessary and oppressive for the purposes of determining issues under sections 77 and 93 of Act 164.

All other categories fail for want of relevance, over-breadth, insufficient nexus to pleadings, or lack of demonstrated possession or power.

Accordingly, the RH’s discovery application (Enclosure 94) is allowed only to the following limited extent.

I rule that the PW shall disclose, within fourteen (14) days, the following documents:

company financial statements for companies where the PW is a shareholder and/or director, namely—

Paragon Group Pte Ltd.; and

(ii) Spice Ventures Sdn. Bhd. (as requested in item (iii) of Enclosure 94) S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A

monthly rental income statements for the following acknowledged properties:

HSD 604469 PTB 24794, Bandar Johor Bahru, Johor (Straits View Property), and

(ii) A-26-07, Tower A, Paragon Residences (as requested in item (xii) of Enclosure 94)

Based on a perusal of the Affidavits filed by both parties, I find that there were no reasonable explanations given by the RH nor sufficient grounds were shown to compel further discovery from the PW.

The remainder of the RH’s discovery requests are refused, on grounds of irrelevance, overbreadth, lack of demonstrated possession/custody/power by the PW, and constituted a fishing expedition.

In a similar vein, given the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, it would be unduly harsh for the PW to be asked to produce such documents, when it was obvious that such documents were not proven to be necessary. Other issues 44. With regard the objection raised by the PW regarding the admissibility of the Affidavit in Support of RH (Enclosure 95) as RH only has a limited proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia and there is no jurat clause included in the Enclosure 95 to show the Enclosure 95 was explained to RH. Therefore, PW submits that Enclosure 95 is in breach of Order 41 subrule 1(7) of ROC 2012 S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A and should be disregarded by the Court.

I am of the considered view that there is no evidence adduced by the PW to show the RH has a limited proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia and do not understand the contents of Enclosure 95. It is pertinent to note that since RH is a Malaysian citizen he may be able to read and understand Bahasa Malaysia although he may not be proficient in Bahasa Malaysia.

Further, I find that even if there is non-compliance to Order 41 subrule 1(7) of ROC 2012, it does not cause miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the PW. Therefore, I disallow the objection raised by the PW.

Based on the reasons above, I find that while some limited further disclosure by the PW was necessary to assist the court in determining matrimonial assets and financial capacity of the PW, the RH’s application was excessive and as such, I rule that Enclosure 94 is partially allowed with costs of RM3,000.00 subject to allocator fees, to be paid by RH to the PW within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order. Dated 12 January 2026. Signed by: SGD ……………….. Wong Mee Ling Judge High Court of Malaya Johor Bahru Johor Darul Ta’zim. S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A Counsel/Solicitor For the PW: Mr. Leslie Looi and Ms. Janani S. Ramu Messrs. Dennis Nik & Wong Counsel/Solicitor For the RH: Ms Chin Yi Ling Messrs. Lim Chambers S/N 2q9roeup1UOUeow2iq0u1A