Yeo Eng Lam v Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) (WA-24NCvC-1973-05/2025)

This Grounds of Judgment is prepared pursuant to the Court’s decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for discovery of certain documents relating to a construction project adjacent to the Plaintiff’s residence, with costs of RM2,000.

The Plaintiff’s application is by way of Notice of Application dated 11.5.2025 (Enclosure 1), brought under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”),

The Plaintiff resides in the vicinity of an ongoing construction project. The Plaintiff complains that a structure exceeding three stories in height has been erected and that the construction has caused the Plaintiff inconvenience in the form of dust and noise.

The Plaintiff therefore seeks disclosure of documents from the Defendant, namely approvals, plans, and records of the said project, to ascertain whether the development was properly authorized under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (“SDPA”).

The Defendant resists the application on two grounds:

The jurisdictional ground: that the Plaintiff’s originating summons is defective and does not properly confer jurisdiction on the Court under Order 7 rule 2(1A) ROC.

The substantive ground: that the Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Order 24 rule 7A ROC, and that the application amounts to an impermissible fishing expedition.

The Defendant has filed an affidavit in reply and written submissions objecting to the application. The Plaintiff in turn, filed affidavits in support, written submissions (Encl. 9, 12, 13), and cited authorities. The Defendant also filed a bundle of authorities (Encl. 8) and reply submissions (Encl. 11).

The issues that arise for determination are:

Whether the Plaintiff’s originating summons is fatally defective for failure to properly cite provisions in the intitulement (Order 7 rule 2(1A) ROC).

Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold under Order 24 rule 7A ROC for discovery, having regard to the nature and purpose of the documents sought. D. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff

The Plaintiff submits that discovery is necessary to determine whether the construction project complies with the SDPA, and to identify the precise causes of action that may be available to him.

The Plaintiff relies on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Infoline Sdn Bhd v Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 6 MLJ 363, where pre-action discovery was allowed to prevent unnecessary litigation and to identify real issues early.

Defendant

The Defendant argues –

First, that the originating summons fails to comply with O.7 r.2(1A) ROC. Authorities cited include Cheow Chew Khoon v Abdul Johari Abdul Rahman [1995] 1 MLRA 679 and Ung Goh Guan v Chan Eng Hooi [2010] 4 MLRA 219.

Second, the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff already knows the party to sue and the nature of the claim. Discovery at this stage is not necessary to identify a cause of action but is sought merely to fish for evidence. Authorities relied on include Ahmad Zahri Mirza v PwC Capital Sdn Bhd [2015] 7 CLJ 930, Shazwani Azami v Kerajaan Malaysia [2025] MLRHU 122, and Sumathi Chandrakumar v Kerajaan Malaysia [2025] MLRHU 123 E. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

Jurisdictional Objection

Order 7 rule 2(1A) ROC requires every originating summons to state in its intitulement the provisions of the rules and any written law under which the Court is moved.

On this first issue, I find that the originating summons, though imperfect in its citation, is not void for want of jurisdiction. The provisions cited in the intitulement are sufficient, and any defect is at most procedural.

In Cheow Chew Khoon and Ung Goh Guan, the Court of Appeal emphasized the mandatory nature of this rule. However, non-compliance does not necessarily deprive the Court of jurisdiction. It may amount to an irregularity or embarrassing pleading, but it is curable.

In the present case, the Plaintiff’s originating summons does cite Orders 7, 24 and 28 ROC, and also provisions of the SDPA. This is not a case of total absence of citation. Any deficiency, in my view, is procedural and not jurisdictional. I therefore reject the Defendant’s first objection.

Compliance with O.24 r.7A ROC

The purpose of O.24 r.7A is to allow discovery where necessary to identify parties, identify causes of action, or to save time and costs by clarifying issues. The courts have cautioned against its misuse as a tool for “fishing” for evidence (Ahmad Zahri Mirza; Shazwani Azami).

On this issue, however, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has not shown necessity under O.24 r.7A. The Defendant is already identified, and the cause of action in nuisance or breach of statutory duty can be pleaded without discovery. The application is in substance a fishing expedition to obtain evidence in advance, which is not the purpose of O.24 r.7A.

The Plaintiff already knows the Defendant (DBKL) and the nature of the complaint (excessive height, dust, noise, and alleged illegality). Plaintiff cause of action could be framed in nuisance, negligence, or breach of statutory duty without the documents sought.

The discovery sought is therefore not essential for identifying the cause of action. Rather, it is to obtain evidence to support an anticipated claim. Such use is outside the scope of O.24 r.7A.

The Plaintiff’s reliance on Infoline is misplaced. In that case, discovery was permitted to determine whether a beneficiary had been lawfully excluded, which directly affected whether a cause of action existed at all. Here, the Plaintiff’s cause of action already exists independently of the documents.

To allow discovery in these circumstances would encourage speculative or satellite litigation, contrary to the policy considerations highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Infoline.

For the reasons above, I find that:

The originating summons is not void for lack of jurisdiction. The citation, though imperfect, is sufficient.

The Plaintiff has not satisfied the threshold of necessity under O.24 r.7A ROC. The application is premature and amounts to a fishing expedition.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for discovery under Enclosure 1 is dismissed with costs of RM2,000 Dated : 23rd October 2025 ……………………………………………… (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : See Kwong Yan Messrs. See Kwong Yan Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendant : Mohd Ruzaini Zulkifli Messrs. Harris Salleh & Co. Advocates & Solicitors