P.G. Doraisamy a/l P. Gopal v AmInvestment Bank Berhad & Ors

Appellant(s): P.G. Doraisamy A/L P.Gopal

Respondent(s): AmInvestment Bank Berhad

• YA Dato' Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The appellant, an advocate and solicitor, deposited over RM9 million into accounts of four financial institutions (the respondents) between 2013 and 2021, believing it was for acquiring shares in a public listed company, Kumpulan Jetson Berhad, based on representations by two other individuals.
• He later discovered that no share trading accounts were opened in his name with the respondents, and no shares were purchased for him, leading him to institute legal action to recover the deposits based on various causes of action including breach of trust, unjust enrichment, and negligence.
• The appellant filed discovery applications against the respondents, seeking documents related to the deposits, which the High Court dismissed, holding that disclosure was unnecessary, a fishing expedition, and prohibited by secrecy provisions under the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA 1991).

• Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the discovery applications on the grounds that the documents were unnecessary, constituted a fishing expedition, and that the appellant first needed to prove an agreement to open a securities account or the purpose of the deposits.
• Whether the High Court correctly applied the secrecy provisions of the SICDA 1991 and the Financial Services Act 2013 (FSA 2013) to prohibit discovery of documents related to the receipt of monies and instructions for their use.
• Whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings or for saving costs, in accordance with Order 24 of the Rules of Court 2012.

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the High Court's decision regarding the first two categories of documents but upholding the refusal for the third category.
• Discovery was granted for documents evidencing the transfers/deposits made by the appellant (First Category) and documents showing the authority, mandate, or instructions upon which the respondents relied to deal with the deposited sums (Second Category), as these were deemed relevant, necessary for a fair trial and cost-saving, and not subject to the secrecy provisions.
• Discovery was denied for documents showing how the deposits were actually utilised by the respondents (Third Category), as these would likely identify third-party accounts and thus fall within the secrecy provisions of section 43 of the SICDA 1991.