P.G. DORAISAMY A/L P.GOPAL v TA Securities Holdings Berhad

w-02imncc-137-01-2025 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 28 January 2026 • W-02(IM)(NCC)-137-01/2025 • 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-137-01-2025). 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 (7)

Chris Koh & Chew Firm Sreenevasan Firm Bobby Chew Chin Guan Counsel Respondent Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan Counsel Appellant Gokul Radhakrishnan Counsel Appellant Lee Bee Hsia Counsel Respondent Selvaratnam Counsel Appellant

Parties (2)

TA Securities Holdings Berhad Respondent P.g. Doraisamy a/l P.gopal Appellant

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the fishing-expedition objection and Order 24 rules 3(4) and 7(3): discovery must be confined to properly identified, relevant documents, but a court that refuses all discovery — including the legitimate categories — commits an error the Court of Appeal will correct, allowing the appeal in part.

This Court of Appeal decision is the fourth of four related discovery appeals heard together under Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012, this appeal concerning the respondent TA Securities Holdings Berhad, a stockbroking firm and participating organisation of Bursa Malaysia. The appellant — a natural person and an advocate and solicitor, referred to here by role — is the plaintiff in a High Court suit who deposited over RM9 million across accounts with four financial institutions from around 2013 to acquire shares in a public listed company, only to discover in 2021 that no share trading accounts had been opened in his name.

The focus most usefully drawn from this appeal is the discipline that Order 24 imposes on a discovery request. The court examined the specific requirements of Order 24 rule 3(4) and rule 7(3), and the recurring objection that the applications amounted to a "fishing expedition" — an attempt to obtain documents in the hope of finding a case rather than to support one already pleaded. Set against this were the appellant's entitlement to documents genuinely relevant to his claim and the statutory-secrecy objection under section 43 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991. The court also recognised the settled principle that an appellate court is slow to interfere with the discretion of the court of first instance on interlocutory matters such as discovery.

Notwithstanding that reticence, the court was satisfied that the High Court had "exercised its discretion in error in its total refusal of discovery", so that appellate interference was warranted. It set aside the decision below and allowed each of the four appeals in part, granting discovery against the respondents for 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 how the fishing-expedition objection and the Order 24 requirements are applied: a request must be confined to properly identified, relevant documents, but a court that refuses all discovery — including the legitimate categories — falls into an error the appellate court will correct.

Summary

Advocate P.G. Doraisamy appealed the High Court's dismissal of his discovery application against TA Securities Holdings Berhad, a stockbroking firm and participating organisation of Bursa Malaysia, sued for alleged facilitation of misappropriation of RM9 million. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part on the same grounds as the companion appeals, granting discovery of the first and second categories of documents.

What is the significance of the fishing-expedition objection here?

It marks the line the Order 24 rules 3(4) and 7(3) draw: discovery must be confined to properly identified documents relevant to a pleaded case, not a speculative search for a case; the court allowed the legitimate First and Second Category documents while excluding the Third.

Why did the appellate court interfere despite its usual reticence?

Although an appellate court is slow to disturb a first-instance discretion on interlocutory matters, the court held the High Court had erred by refusing discovery entirely, including proper categories; it set the decision aside and allowed each appeal in part, with no order as to costs.