GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD v MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD

ja-22ncc-23-03-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 26 January 2026 • JA-22NCC-23-03/2023 • 13 min read
1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Tatacara Sivil – Penzahiran dokumen – Penzahiran terhadap pihak ketiga – Aturan 24 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Relevan dan keperluan – Milikan, jagaan atau kuasa dokumen – Permohonan lewat – Pengurusan kes – PTCM – Common Bundle of Documents – Fishing expedition – Permohonan menindas – Budi bicara Mahkamah – Kos dalam kausa.

Practice Areas

Tatacara Sivil

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (9)

Clarence Edwin Law Office Firm Justin Wee Firm Raja, Daryl & Loh Firm Chee Ai Dee Counsel Plaintiff Justin Wee Counsel Plaintiff Ng Si Counsel Defendant Param Counsel Third Party Raja Counsel Defendant Teoh Cheong Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD Plaintiff MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES Sdn Bhd Defendant V.S. INDUSTRY BERHAD Intervener

Case Significance

GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD v MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTR... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 26, 2026 (citation: ja-22ncc-23-03-2023). <p>The defendant in a commercial supply chain dispute applied for document disclosure against a third party (V.S. Industry Berhad) under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012, seeking contracts and documents to support its indemnity claim. The key issues were whether the documents were relevant and necessary, whether they were in the third party's possession, and whether the application was timely. The High Court dismissed the application, finding it was filed late, amounted to a fishing expeditio The case was decided by Manira binti Mohd Nor. Counsel appearing: Chee Ai Dee (counsel for plaintiff), Justin Wee (counsel for plaintiff), Ng Si (counsel for defendant), Param (counsel third party), Raja (counsel for defendant), Teoh Cheong (counsel for defendant).

Summary

The defendant in a commercial supply chain dispute applied for document disclosure against a third party (V.S. Industry Berhad) under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012, seeking contracts and documents to support its indemnity claim. The key issues were whether the documents were relevant and necessary, whether they were in the third party's possession, and whether the application was timely. The High Court dismissed the application, finding it was filed late, amounted to a fishing expedition, and failed to meet the requirements of Order 24.

What was the outcome of GLOCOM MARKETING PTE LTD v MYBRUSH INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH V.S. INDUSTR...?

<p>The defendant in a commercial supply chain dispute applied for document disclosure against a third party (V.S. Industry Berhad) under Order 24 of t...

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)
[2024] MLJU 1827