Failure to comply with the rules of discovery may, in more serious cases, result in an action being dismissed, or a defence being struck out and judgment entered accordingly.~ Shearn Delamore & Co
The firm of Shearn Delamore & Co, has published a paper which covers the rules for discovery of documents in the Malaysian High Courts.
6.5 To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted, how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted, what other, if any, mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse
party or from third parties?
http://www.shearndelamore.com/assets/templates/images/pdf/paper_publications/Pat_Lit_Malaysia%2016pp.pdf
The counsel defending PwC Malaysia, in the case which is currently being heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, is a partner in Shearn Delamore & Co. So we have to wonder why PwC Malaysia decided to conceal 162 documents at the start of the trial, and why their learned counsel would have thought that this was a good idea?
The High Court will have to take a serious look at the question whether justice is being done when a global behemoth like PwC, or at least its Malaysian avatar, PwC Malaysia, can decide when and how it chooses to allow discovery of documents, and in fact manipulate the rules of discovery to suit itself.
Isn't this a case of "cakap tak serupa bikin"? We have a case here where the rules of discovery may as well have disappeared into thin air.
The need for a level playing field becomes incredibly important when we have a case of a David (Malaysian citizen) taking on a Goliath (multi-billion dollar Global Firm), but we seem to not be able to provide that level playing field, despite all the rules and orders which state otherwise.
How many cases involving Goliaths like PwC have gone their way, because they were able to manipulate matters so that the Plaintiffs who have had the gumption to take them to task were not even allowed to have a proper discovery of documents before the trial began?
And when the goliaths are secure in the knowledge that they can forever hide what they wish, and lie as they wish, when they are dragged into the courts in Malaysia, can justice even enter our shores?
The firm of Shearn Delamore & Co, has published a paper which covers the rules for discovery of documents in the Malaysian High Courts.
6.5 To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted, how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted, what other, if any, mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse
party or from third parties?
The Rules of the High Court 1980, Order 24 sets out the mechanism for the
discovery and inspection of documents at the pre-trial stage.
First, there is a requirement for the mutual discovery of documents at
the close of pleadings whereby parties to an action shall make and serve on
each other a list of documents which are or have been in their possession or
custody relating to any matter in question in the action.
Second, the High Court is empowered to order the discovery of
documents on the application of any party to an action upon the failure
by another party to comply with the requirements for discovery under the
Rules of High Court 1980. The High Court may further order that the party
make discovery and file an affidavit verifying the lists of documents to be
filed, and a copy to be served on the applicant.
The documents listed by a party to an action for discovery shall be
available for inspection and the taking of copies by the other party. The
High Court is empowered to make an order for such documents to be made
available for inspection and the taking of copies, on the application of any
party to the proceedings, upon the failure of the other party to produce any
documents listed for discovery for inspection and taking of copies.
Failure to comply with the rules of discovery may, in more serious cases,
result in an action being dismissed, or a defence being struck out and
judgment entered accordingly.
discovery and inspection of documents at the pre-trial stage.
First, there is a requirement for the mutual discovery of documents at
the close of pleadings whereby parties to an action shall make and serve on
each other a list of documents which are or have been in their possession or
custody relating to any matter in question in the action.
Second, the High Court is empowered to order the discovery of
documents on the application of any party to an action upon the failure
by another party to comply with the requirements for discovery under the
Rules of High Court 1980. The High Court may further order that the party
make discovery and file an affidavit verifying the lists of documents to be
filed, and a copy to be served on the applicant.
The documents listed by a party to an action for discovery shall be
available for inspection and the taking of copies by the other party. The
High Court is empowered to make an order for such documents to be made
available for inspection and the taking of copies, on the application of any
party to the proceedings, upon the failure of the other party to produce any
documents listed for discovery for inspection and taking of copies.
Failure to comply with the rules of discovery may, in more serious cases,
result in an action being dismissed, or a defence being struck out and
judgment entered accordingly.
http://www.shearndelamore.com/assets/templates/images/pdf/paper_publications/Pat_Lit_Malaysia%2016pp.pdf
The counsel defending PwC Malaysia, in the case which is currently being heard in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, is a partner in Shearn Delamore & Co. So we have to wonder why PwC Malaysia decided to conceal 162 documents at the start of the trial, and why their learned counsel would have thought that this was a good idea?
The High Court will have to take a serious look at the question whether justice is being done when a global behemoth like PwC, or at least its Malaysian avatar, PwC Malaysia, can decide when and how it chooses to allow discovery of documents, and in fact manipulate the rules of discovery to suit itself.
Further, once the action has been instituted and pleadings are
deemed to be closed, it is provided under Order 24 of the
Malaysian Rules of High Court 1980 that parties are to institute
discovery of documents between parties of the action. This order
compels each party to make discovery and give inspection of the
documents which are or have been in their possession, custody
or power relating to the matters in question in the action.
deemed to be closed, it is provided under Order 24 of the
Malaysian Rules of High Court 1980 that parties are to institute
discovery of documents between parties of the action. This order
compels each party to make discovery and give inspection of the
documents which are or have been in their possession, custody
or power relating to the matters in question in the action.
~ This is the answer given by Malaysia to the AIPPI, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property.
Isn't this a case of "cakap tak serupa bikin"? We have a case here where the rules of discovery may as well have disappeared into thin air.
The need for a level playing field becomes incredibly important when we have a case of a David (Malaysian citizen) taking on a Goliath (multi-billion dollar Global Firm), but we seem to not be able to provide that level playing field, despite all the rules and orders which state otherwise.
How many cases involving Goliaths like PwC have gone their way, because they were able to manipulate matters so that the Plaintiffs who have had the gumption to take them to task were not even allowed to have a proper discovery of documents before the trial began?
And when the goliaths are secure in the knowledge that they can forever hide what they wish, and lie as they wish, when they are dragged into the courts in Malaysia, can justice even enter our shores?
No comments:
Post a Comment