Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Scope of Discovery and Inspection Rights - Under Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012), the court has the authority to order both discovery and inspection of documents relevant to the case. The rule explicitly distinguishes between the two processes but indicates that inspection is a natural consequence of an order for discovery. It allows parties to request inspection of specific documents, and the court may order production for inspection if deemed necessary for fair disposal of the case ["
PROTASCO BHD vs TEY POR YEE & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS - Federal Court Putrajaya
"], ["WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court Malaya Kedah
"].Right to Make Copies - The right to make copies of documents is generally implied within the scope of inspection rights. Several cases, such as Hai-o Enterprise Bhd & Ors (2009), clarify that once documents are ordered for inspection, parties are typically entitled to inspect and also to make copies of those documents. The court's discretion to order production for inspection often includes the right to copy documents, especially when copies are necessary for the party's case or for fair proceedings ["
PROTASCO BHD vs TEY POR YEE & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS - Federal Court Putrajaya
"], ["WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"].Legal Framework and Limitations - The rules emphasize that discovery and inspection are limited to matters relevant to the dispute. Orders for production or inspection are only made if the court considers it necessary for disposing of the case fairly or for saving costs. The court also has discretion to refuse or adjourn applications if discovery or inspection is deemed unnecessary at a particular stage ["
PROTASCO BHD vs TEY POR YEE & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS - Federal Court Putrajaya
"], ["WEE CHOO KEONG vs SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA (SKMM/MCMC) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"], ["SHASHIKALA SEGARA vs AIA GENERAL BHD - High Court Malaya Kedah
"].Pre-Action Discovery - Under Rule 24 Rule 7A, parties can seek pre-action discovery, which includes the right to inspect and copy documents before formal proceedings commence. The court may order such discovery if it considers it necessary to clarify facts or prevent abuse, with the right to make copies naturally flowing from the inspection order ["
LING PIK KIEW & ANOR vs MEW SING HOLDINGS BERHAD & ANOR - High Court Sabah & Sarawak Sibu
"].Analysis and Conclusion:Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 primarily grants the court the authority to order the discovery and inspection of documents relevant to the case. While the rule explicitly addresses inspection, the right to make copies of documents generally accompanies the right to inspect, as evidenced by case law and procedural practice. The courts emphasize that both discovery and inspection are subject to relevance and necessity, and the right to make copies is typically implied as part of the inspection process, provided it is necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of the dispute.
In the intricate world of litigation, plays a pivotal role in ensuring a fair trial. But what happens when a party seeks not just to inspect documents under , but also to make copies? This question often arises: Under Application Pursuant to Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, does the Right to Expand to the Right to Make Copies of the Documents?
This blog post delves into the legal framework, key principles, court precedents, and practical considerations surrounding this issue. While this provides general insights based on Malaysian case law, it is not a substitute for professional legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
governs and of documents, promoting transparency to prevent . Rule 7 specifically allows a party to apply for an order requiring the opposing party to produce particular documents for and copying
.
The core purpose? To facilitate a fair trial by enabling access to relevant evidence
. Courts emphasize that is not a tool for but a mechanism for justice
.
Generally, the right to under Order 24 Rule 7 does extend to the right to make copies of relevant documents in the opposing party's
. This dual right is affirmed in judicial decisions, where parties may inspect at a designated time and place and take copies for use in proceedings
.
Key points include:- Relevance: Documents must relate to issues in the case
.- : They must be in the , , or of the responding party
.- Identification: Requests must specify documents clearly, avoiding vagueness
.- Fair Trial Necessity: Production aids fair disposal or saves costs
.
The court's discretion ensures these rights are exercised judiciously
.
Courts hold significant discretion in ordering production, , and copying. As noted, the court’s discretionary to order document production, , and copying, and the criteria for such orders, including relevance and necessity
. This prevents abuse and promotes efficiency
.
Once ordered, the process typically involves:1. Notification within specified timelines (e.g., seven days under related rules)
.2. at an agreed or court-designated venue.3. Copying rights, subject to conditions like costs or restrictions
.
Several cases illustrate how courts apply these principles, often expanding to copying or forensic use when necessary.
In a cheque forgery dispute, the court granted under for original physical cheques, allowing . It held that production of documents for is permissible under the , interpreting the necessity requirement broadly to ensure fair trial conditions
. This underscores that copying or even advanced may be ordered if key to proving the case.
in divorce proceedings further highlights relevance: The court allowed of documents to ascertain financial capacity, stating they were necessary to fairly dispose of the case and distinguishing from
.
Contrastingly, in Petroliam Nasional Berhad & Other Appeals2014 6 MLJ 31, under related Order 24 rules empowers courts to order production where necessary
.
However, limits exist. was denied where not necessary for fair disposal or cost-saving, as the essence of contents was already known
. Similarly, vague requests for bank documents were dismissed as , failing specificity and relevance tests
....
. The court noted: Applicants must specify documents sought and show relevance to the case....
.These cases reinforce that while typically includes copying, it hinges on judicial oversight
.
Not every request succeeds. Common rejections occur when:- Documents do not exist or are not possessed by the respondent
.- Requests lack relevance or specificity
.- or applies (though not detailed here)
.- It's a mere fishing expedition
.
are not to be made lightly, only if necessary per
.
To maximize success in applications:- Specify Clearly: Identify documents precisely, linking to case issues
.- Prove Necessity: Demonstrate how /copying ensures a fair trial
.- Anticipate Discretion: Be ready for court conditions, like costs or timelines.- Avoid Overreach: Tailor requests to avoid dismissal as speculative
....
.Compliance streamlines proceedings and bolsters your position.
In summary, under Order 24 Rule 7, the right to generally expands to copying relevant documents in the opposing party's , subject to relevance, identification, and court discretion
. This framework, supported by cases like those involving forensic exams and financial disclosures, ensures litigation fairness without unnecessary burdens.
Key Takeaways:- + copying = standard for relevant docs
.- Court oversight prevents abuse.- Specificity is crucial for approval.
Stay informed on rules to navigate Malaysian courts effectively. For tailored guidance, seek legal counsel.
References: Cases cited via document IDs including
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
....
. #Order24Rule7, #LegalDiscovery, #MalaysiaLaw
Section 7 empowers the Court to order the inspection and the taking of copies of entries in a bankers' book in the pretrial discovery process. ... [78] The Court under O 24 r 7 ROC 2012 can order for discovery of particular documents on the application of any par....
Petroliam Nasional Berhad & Other Appeals; [2014] 6 MLJ 31; [2014] 7 CLJ 597; [2014] 5 AMR 285, held that: "[44] With regard to discovery, O 24 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High 1980 (now O 24 r 4 of the Rules of 2012) empowers the Court to make an order that ... JUDGMENT Azizan Md Arshad J: [Discovery Of #HL_START....
(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 24 rules 12 and 13 – Plaintiff's application for the production of original physical cheques following ... [7] On 11 November 2020, the Plaintiff filed an application for discovery against the Defendant, for 282 cheques from the total of 417, pursuant to O 24 rr 3 and 7 of the ROC ("Discovery #HL_START....
The relevant part of the rule states as follows: After leave has been granted, any party to an application for judicial review may apply to the Judge for discovery and inspection of documents pursuant to O 24... ... It is a rule that discovery and inspection must be restricted to matters relevant to an existing dispu....
(A) Rules of 2012 - Order 24 r 7A - Pre-action discovery - Plaintiffs sought discovery of documents related to the shareholding and ... make and serve affidavit to make disclosure of the same documents for discovery and inspection, or vice versa. ... [48] Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendants shall be entitled to the costs of this ....
[6] This application is filed pursuant to O 24 rr 7, 8, 10 and/or 11 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC). Yekambaran Marimuthu v. ... Chan Jit Li J: [1] Enclosure 14 is an application by the defendant for discovery of documents pursuant to O 24 r 3 of the Rules of (ROC). ... Produc....
(A) Order 24 of Rules of Court 2012 – Applications for discovery of documents – The essential elements for an order of discovery ... The Law Pursuant To Order 24 Rule 3 & 7 Rules Of Courts 2012 [22] I reproduced the rules for ease of reference- Order for discovery (O 24 r 3) (1) S....
O 24 r 13) O 24 r 7 of the Rules of court 2012 within seven days from the date of this order, stating whether he has or had at any time been in possession, custody or his control, of the documents described in the sub-paragraphs
(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Order 24 – Application for production and inspection – Appeal dismissed – Inspection of documents ... This is clearly as provided for in O 24 r 13(1) which states, Production to be ordered only if necessary (O 24, r 13) 13. (1) An order for the production of any documents for inspection or to the Court shall not be m....
(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 Rule 7A(2) - Bankers' Book (Evidence) Act 1949 - Section 7 - Discovery Application - Plaintiffs ... JUDGMENTEddie Yeo Soon Chye JC: [Enclosure 140: Application for Discovery pursuant to Order 24 Rule 7A(2) Rules of Court 2012 and/or Section 7 of Bankers' Book (Evi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
