In the realm of legal disputes, the process of gathering evidence plays a crucial role in ensuring fairness and justice. One of the key mechanisms used in court proceedings is the discovery application, which allows parties to obtain relevant documents from their opponents. This article explores the concept of discovery applications, the governing law and the guiding legal principles.
What is a Discovery Application?
A discovery application is a legal process through which a party requests access to specific documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the opposing party. This process is governed by Order 24 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012, which empowers the court to order a party to provide a list of relevant documents and, in some cases, submit an affidavit verifying the list.
Under the Rules of Court 2012, documents that may be subject to discovery include:
- Documents relied upon by a party in their case.
- Documents that could adversely affect the party’s own case.
- Documents that could support or weaken another party’s case.
Key Legal Principles for a Discovery Application
The leading case on discovery applications is Yekambaran Marimuthu v Malayawata Steel Berhad [1994] 2 CLJ 581, where the Supreme Court established three essential elements that must be met for a discovery application to succeed:
- Existence of a document – The document must be real and identifiable.
- Relevance of the document – It must relate to the factual issues in dispute.
- Possession, custody, or control – The requested documents must be in the possession of the opposing party.
This element was affirmed in the Court of Appeal case of Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bandar Utama 1JMB [2019] 10 CLJ 516. If any of these elements are not satisfied, the court has the discretion to dismiss the discovery application.
Determining Relevance in Discovery Applications
Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd (supra) further elaborated on what constitutes a ‘relevant’ document. The Court of Appeal refer to the Singapore High Court case of Surface Stone Pte Ltd v. Tay Seng Leong and Another [2011] SGHC 223, where reliance was placed on the earlier English case of Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co [1882] 11 QBD 55, which held that a document is considered relevant if it:
- Could provide direct evidence in the case.
- Contains information that could indirectly assist in advancing a party’s argument.
- Leads to a train of inquiry that may reveal more crucial information.
However, courts do not permit fishing expeditions—meaning, parties cannot seek broad access to documents without clear justification for their relevance.
The Role of Necessity in Discovery
Another important consideration is whether the requested documents are necessary for the case. Order 24 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 states that a court will only grant discovery if it is necessary to fairly resolve the case or to save costs. If the documents are deemed unnecessary or irrelevant at a particular stage of the case, the court may refuse or postpone the application.
In Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 1252, the Court of Appeal affirmed that merely claiming a document is relevant is insufficient. The necessity for disclosure must be clearly demonstrated to obtain a discovery order.
Limitations on Discovery Applications
Although discovery is a valuable legal tool to ensure a fair and efficient disposal of in legal proceedings, it is not an absolute right. Courts have the discretion to reject applications if they find:
However, courts do not permit fishing expeditions—meaning, parties cannot seek broad access to documents without clear justification for their relevance.
The Role of Necessity in Discovery
Another important consideration is whether the requested documents are necessary for the case. Order 24 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2012 states that a court will only grant discovery if it is necessary to fairly resolve the case or to save costs. If the documents are deemed unnecessary or irrelevant at a particular stage of the case, the court may refuse or postpone the application.
In Malaysia Debt Ventures Berhad v Platinum Techsolve Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 1252, the Court of Appeal affirmed that merely claiming a document is relevant is insufficient. The necessity for disclosure must be clearly demonstrated to obtain a discovery order.
Limitations on Discovery Applications
Although discovery is a valuable legal tool to ensure a fair and efficient disposal of in legal proceedings, it is not an absolute right. Courts have the discretion to reject applications if they find:
- The documents are focusing on to resolving the key issues in the case (Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan v. Petroliam Nasional Berhad & Other Appeals [2014] 7 CLJ 597).
- The application is being used as a delay tactic or for improper purposes.
- Granting discovery would unnecessarily increase litigation costs.
Conclusion
A discovery application is an essential part of litigation, ensuring transparency and fairness by allowing parties to access crucial documents. However, courts exercise strict scrutiny over such applications to prevent abuse of the process. To succeed in obtaining discovery, an applicant must demonstrate that the documents sought are real, relevant, and necessary for the case. By adhering to these legal principles, the discovery process helps uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensures that justice is served efficiently.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute any legal advice. If you have any questions or require further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.