1. ) Tan Huey Zi [Bertindak Bagi Diri Sendiri Dan Bagi Pihak Pendeposit Dan Sebagai Rakan Kongsi Omg Luxury Trading (No. Pendaftaran: 202203021410 (003362178-h)) Dan Berniaga Sebagai Hz Wealth Consultancy (No. Pendaftaran: Pg0526735x (20220308900)] 2. ) SIM BOON HONG v Chan Lennon [Secara Sendiri Dan Juga Berniaga Sebagai Owo Group Enterprise (No. Pendaftaran: 202303007438 (Kt0537624-h)]

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the Order 24 discovery test in a fraud and tracing claim, holding that a defendant's bank account statements are discoverable where relevant and necessary to show the movement of funds and to dispose of the cause fairly and economically.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application for discovery of bank account statements in a fraud action, and the test for ordering such discovery under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The first plaintiff sued on his own behalf and on behalf of a number of other depositors, alleging that he and the other claimants had transferred substantial sums into the bank accounts of the defendant, of his registered business and of nominees, for the purchase of luxury watches and cars under what was said to be an investment scheme. The plaintiffs' case was that there was no genuine investment scheme at all, and they sued the defendant in deceit, fraud and conspiracy with unknown third parties. To advance that case, the plaintiffs sought discovery of the defendant's bank account statements, contending that these documents were relevant and necessary to show the contemporaneous characterisation of the payments and receipts and to trace where the monies had been moved. The Court applied the principles governing discovery under Order 24 rules 3, 7 and 8, focusing on the relevance of the documents and whether their production was necessary for disposing fairly of the cause and for saving costs. Weighing the nature of the dispute and the stark contrast between the parties' respective pleaded positions, the Court held that discovery of the requested bank statements was necessary, and necessary at that stage, because the documents would surface the evidence for enhanced case assessment and its preservation at the earliest possible point, and were likely to lead to a train of inquiry advancing the plaintiffs' case. The Court accordingly ordered discovery of the bank account statements. The decision illustrates how the discovery jurisdiction is deployed in fraud and tracing claims, where a defendant's banking records may be central to proving the movement of funds.