Chin Tong Lim & Ors v Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur & Anor

Appellant(s):

• Chin Tong Lim (menyaman atas kapasitinya sendiri dan sebagai pegawai awam Persatuan Penduduk Lake Fields, Sg Besi, untuk Meadows and Glades Residences, menurut Seksyen 9 Akta Pertubuhan, 1996 dan dalam kapasiti wakil bagi pemilik berdaftar dan / atau penduduk unit di Meadow & Glades, Lake Fields Residences)
• Wang Wee Keong (menyaman atas kapasiti sendiri dan sebagai pegawai awam Persatuan Penduduk Taman Tasik Damai, Kuala Lumpur (Dale), menurut Seksyen 9 Akta Pertubuhan, 1996 dan dalam kapasiti wakil bagi pemilik berdaftar dan / atau penduduk unit di Dale, Lake Fields Residences)
• Heng Fok Aun (menyaman atas kapasiti sendiri dan dalam kapasiti wakil untuk 188 pemilik berdaftar dan / atau penduduk unit di Reed, Residensi Lake Fields);
• Fendi Shareef Ang (menyaman atas kapasiti sendiri dan dalam kapasiti wakil untuk 45 pemilik berdaftar dan / atau penduduk unit di Grove, Residensi Lake Fields)
• Yong Pitt Lok (menyaman atas kapasiti sendiri dan dalam kapasiti wakil untuk 2 pemilik berdaftar dan / atau penduduk unit di Pusat Komersial Trillium)
• Saifuddin Bin Ahmad

Respondent(s):

• Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur
• Astana Setia & Euro Saga Sdn Bhd

• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• Residents and residents' associations of a housing/commercial development adjoining a lake in Kuala Lumpur filed a judicial review application challenging a development order granted for an adjacent lot and an approval for construction of a bridge across the lake, on grounds relating to flood mitigation and environmental impact.
• After obtaining leave to proceed with the judicial review, the applicants applied for discovery of six categories of specific documents relevant to the development order and bridge approval, having earlier received no response to written requests for the same documents from the public authority and the developer.
• The High Court dismissed the discovery application, relying on the "three-fold test" from Yekambaran v Malayawata Steel Bhd and characterising the application as a "fishing expedition".

• Whether the correct test for discovery of specific documents is that in Order 24 rule 7(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC), or the older common law test in Yekambaran, or concepts of "fact in issue"/"relevant fact" under the Evidence Act 1950.
• Whether the term "fishing expedition" remains a valid legal basis to dismiss a discovery application, and whether specific discovery can be ordered under Order 24 rule 7(1) RC without a prior general discovery order.
• Whether, and how, a court may resist disclosure on public interest immunity grounds under Order 24 rule 15 RC, including the court's power to privately inspect documents, redact them, or issue sealing/protective orders.

• The Court of Appeal held that the Yekambaran relevancy test and Evidence Act concepts of "fact in issue"/"relevant fact" no longer apply to discovery applications, having been superseded by the express statutory criteria in Order 24 rules 3(4) and 7(3) RC; the term "fishing expedition" should not be used as a ground to dismiss discovery applications.
• The Court held that specific discovery may be ordered under Order 24 rule 7(1) RC without a prior general discovery order where "necessary or desirable" under rule 7(4), which is especially apt in judicial review proceedings given the need for expeditious disposal and the public authority's duty of candour to make full and fair disclosure of relevant materials (applying Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises).
• Finding the High Court had erred in law by applying the wrong test and failing to recognise the appellants had satisfied all three conditions for specific discovery, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordered discovery of the six categories of documents, but preserved the respondents' rights to claim privilege or seek redaction of any document on public interest grounds, with costs awarded against the respondents.