P.G. DORAISAMY A/L P.GOPAL v AmInvestment Bank Berhad

w-02imncc-134-01-2025 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 28 January 2026 • W-02(IM)(NCC)-134-01/2025 • 41 min read

6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Outcome

As such, we set aside the decision of the High Court on each of the four appeals in part, and thus allow each of the four appeals in part, whereby the discovery order is hereby granted against the respondents pursuant to the respective notices of application in respect of documents in the First Category and the Second Category only, but not the Third Category. [104] The order on costs granted by the High Court is also set aside. [105] We make no order as to costs for these appeals.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-02imncc-134-01-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

discovery application - Order 24 r 3 & 7 ROC 2012 - requirements of the Order 24 r 3 (4) and Order 24 r 7 (3) - Whether the discovery application is meritorious - fishing expedition - Whether discovery is prohibited by statutory provisions on secrecy - section 43 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (“the SICDA 1991”) - Banks’ Duty of Care to Non-Customers - The Financial Services Act 2013

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Banking & Finance Tort

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Alwi bin Abdul Wahab Coram Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali Delivered

Counsel (6)

Shook Lin & Bok Firm Sreenevasan Firm Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan Counsel Appellant Gokul Radhakrishnan Counsel Appellant Muhammad Izzat Zainal Counsel Respondent Selvaratnam Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

AmInvestment Bank Berhad Respondent P.g. Doraisamy a/l P.gopal Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates the balance in discovery under Order 24: an applicant tracing over RM9 million is entitled to targeted, relevant categories of documents but not an open-ended trawl, and a High Court's wholesale refusal of otherwise proper discovery is an error the Court of Appeal will correct, allowing the appeal in part.

This Court of Appeal decision is one of four related appeals, heard together, concerning discovery applications made under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. The appellant — a natural person and an advocate and solicitor, referred to here by role — is the plaintiff in a High Court suit; the respondent in this appeal is AmInvestment Bank Berhad, one of four investment banks and stockbroking firms, each a participating organisation of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad, against which he sought discovery. The underlying complaint is that, from around 2013, on the strength of representations by two individuals, the appellant deposited a total of over RM9 million into accounts with the four respondents to acquire shares in a public listed company, only to discover in 2021 that no share trading accounts had ever been opened in his name.

The High Court had dismissed each of the discovery applications in full. The Court of Appeal examined the requirements of Order 24 rule 3 and rule 7 — including rules 3(4) and 7(3) — and the objections that the applications were a "fishing expedition" and that discovery was barred by statutory secrecy, in particular section 43 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991, together with the scope of a bank's duty of care to non-customers under the Financial Services Act 2013. Against a party seeking documents to trace where his money went, these competing considerations of legitimate discovery and statutory confidentiality had to be balanced.

The court held that the High Court had "exercised its discretion in error in its total refusal of discovery", and that appellate interference was warranted to that extent. While an appellate court is slow to disturb a discretionary interlocutory decision, a complete refusal here went too far. The court therefore set aside the decision below and allowed each of the four appeals in part, granting the discovery order against the respondents in respect of the documents in the First and Second Categories only, but not the Third. It set aside the High Court's costs order and made no order as to costs on the appeals.

The judgment is a useful illustration of the balance struck in discovery: an applicant is entitled to targeted categories of documents genuinely relevant to his claim, but not to an open-ended trawl, and a wholesale refusal of otherwise proper discovery is an error the appellate court will correct.

Summary

Advocate P.G. Doraisamy appealed the High Court's dismissal of his discovery application against AmInvestment Bank Berhad, one of four investment banks sued for allegedly facilitating the misappropriation of RM9 million deposited based on representations by the first and second defendants. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting discovery for the first and second categories of documents but denying the third category, finding that the statutory secrecy provisions under SICDA did not bar discovery and that the banks owed a duty of care.

Why did the Court of Appeal interfere with the discovery decision?

Because the High Court had erred in its total refusal of discovery; although an appellate court is slow to disturb a discretionary interlocutory ruling, a wholesale refusal of otherwise proper discovery went too far, so the court set the decision aside and allowed the appeals in part.

What discovery was ultimately granted?

Discovery was granted against the respondents for the documents in the First and Second Categories only, but not the Third — balancing the appellant's entitlement to targeted, relevant documents against objections of a fishing expedition and statutory secrecy under section 43 of the SICDA 1991; costs orders were set aside with no order as to costs on the appeals.