MARITIME NETWORK SDN BHD v RHB BANK BERHAD

wa-24ncc-114-03-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 1 July 2025 • WA-24NCC-114-03/2025 • 27 min read

10 cases cited (3 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

pre-action discovery by the plaintiff against RHB pursuant to Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012-curb money laundering under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 200-Minimum Due Diligence Guide for Foreign Exchange Rules - Financial Institution-principles to be applied on pre-action discovery-from Order 24 rule 7A, Order 24 rule 8 and Order 24 rule 13 ROC 2012-The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the court should exercise its discretion to grant a pre-action discovery-In respect of a pre-action discovery for a defendant to disclose documents on the identity of the wrongdoers, the plaintiff should show that the defendant although not the wrongdoers, has somehow got mixed up in the tortious acts of that wrongdoers so as to facilitate their wrongdoings so that he comes under a duty to assist the plaintiff who had been wronged by disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers-In respect of a pre-action discovery for information contained in a document to be provided by a defendant the plaintiff must show that the information is necessary in order for him to determine if he can even commence legal action against the intended defendant. In such cases, the pre-action discovery order ought to be made to avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs, preventing wastage of time and resources which is what pre-action discovery seeks to achieve-To resist disclosure, the defendant can show that the plaintiff is on a fishing trip or fishing expedition-To resist disclosure, the defendant can also show that that there is some consideration of public policy which prevents him from making this disclosure. Consideration of public policy which can prevent him from making disclosure maybe that such disclosures would or might impair or hamper the efficient conduct of a defendant’s statutory duties. And secondly such disclosure would or might be prejudicial to those whose identity would be disclosed. The Court will then have to do a balancing act by examining the facts. On the whole, if a document would be discoverable in a discovery application filed once a suit is commenced, such a document should be discoverable in my view. Especially if its disclosure now is necessary in order for the plaintiff to determine if he can even commence legal action in the first place against an intended defendant. For in such cases, the pre-action discovery order ought to be made to avoid unnecessary litigation thus saving costs and preventing wastage of time and resources which is the very objective of Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012-Apart from considerations of public policy that prevent disclosure, the defendant can also show that he is prevented by common law or some statute from making this disclosure. Statutory defences available are for example legal professional privilege under section 126 to 129 of the Evidence Act 1950 or documents and information protected under sections 2, 13A and 16a of the Official Secrets Act 1972- When ordering pre-action discovery, a defendant is entitled to his costs of the application, unless the Court orders otherwise, and of producing a copy each of the documents ordered on an indemnity basis-pre-action discovery is to assist a plaintiff who “does not yet know whether he has a viable claim against the defendant, and the rule is there to assist him in his search for the answer.” The word “viable” must not be understood to mean that the plaintiff is entitled to pre-action discovery for the purpose of augmenting his case or to “complete his entire picture of the case

Practice Areas

Banking & Finance Civil Procedure Criminal Law Evidence

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Gan Partnership Firm Tanes, Khoo & Paulraj Firm Gan Khong Aik Counsel Defendant James Joshua Paulraj Counsel Plaintiff P. Taneswaran Counsel Plaintiff Tong Min Jie Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

MARITIME NETWORK Sdn Bhd Applicant RHB BANK BERHAD Respondent

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits of pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012: an applicant must show a viable claim rather than use discovery to build one, and a customer's application for a bank's anti-money-laundering compliance documents was dismissed as failing that threshold.

This High Court decision in the Commercial Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for pre-action discovery brought by a customer against its bank. The plaintiff, Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, applied under Order 24 rule 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 for pre-action discovery against the defendant, RHB Bank Berhad, seeking the bank's compliance and due-diligence documents relating to foreign exchange transactions and anti-money-laundering controls under the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, including a Minimum Due Diligence Guide and the bank's internal foreign-exchange compliance policies. The court set out the principles governing pre-action discovery under Order 24 rules 7A, 8 and 13, under which the burden lies on the applicant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion, and pre-action discovery is not available merely to enable an applicant to augment its case or to complete its picture of a potential claim; the applicant must show that it has a viable cause of action and, where discovery is sought to identify wrongdoers, that the defendant is sufficiently involved. The court found that the plaintiff had proceeded despite clear indications from the bank that the course was ill-advised, and that the documents sought did not meet the threshold of relevance and necessity for pre-action discovery, being directed at augmenting a case rather than at a genuinely viable claim, and raising issues of confidentiality. It dismissed the application, with costs of RM10,000 to the defendant. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limits of pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A and of the requirement that an applicant show a viable claim rather than use discovery to build one. The judgment also illustrates the tension between a litigant's desire to investigate a suspected wrong and the protection the law affords to confidential banking and regulatory-compliance material, and it confirms that the pre-action discovery jurisdiction is a narrow one, not a licence to compel a financial institution to hand over its internal policies in the hope that a cause of action will emerge from them.

Why was the application for pre-action discovery dismissed?

The court held that the documents sought did not meet the threshold of relevance and necessity for pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A, being directed at augmenting a potential case rather than at a genuinely viable claim, and it dismissed the application with costs of RM10,000 to the bank.

What must an applicant show to obtain pre-action discovery under Order 24 rule 7A?

The applicant bears the burden of persuading the court to exercise its discretion and must show a viable cause of action, and where discovery is sought to identify wrongdoers, that the defendant is sufficiently involved; pre-action discovery is not available merely to augment a case or complete the applicant's picture of a potential claim.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (10)

SLR (3)

[2003] 1 SLR 75 [2012] 2 SLR 22 [2012] 4 SLR 185

MY (7)

[2009] 5 MLJ 40 [2015] MLJU 878 [2017] 10 MLJ 213 [2017] 8 CLJ 554 [2018] MLJU 697 [2018] MLJU 953 [2022] 12 MLJ 37

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-114-03-2025)