Court of Appeal widens access to documents in judicial review cases

The Court of Appeal in Malaysia has expanded access to documents in judicial review cases, reversing a previous decision that relied on an outdated relevancy test. A three-judge panel ruled that courts should no longer dismiss discovery applications based solely on labeling them as "fishing expeditions". The new standard is outlined in Order 24 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court 2012, which covers discovery of documents relevant to any party's case, including those that could harm or further investigations.

The decision overturned a High Court ruling that refused a judicial review application by six residents challenging a development order and access bridge plans for Lake Fields. The residents argued the High Court had incorrectly applied the old relevancy test. The Court of Appeal found three errors in the High Court's approach, including its reliance on the outdated rule.

The residents had properly demonstrated the need for the documents under Order 24, and the mayor, as a public authority, owed a duty of candour. The court emphasized that public authorities must provide full disclosure of relevant materials. The case was set aside, allowing the discovery application to proceed. Respondents can still seek privilege and redaction before the High Court.

The mayor and developer must pay RM30,000 in costs to the appellants, who are represented by N Ganesan, Alicia Gomez, L Narendran, Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi, and Phoebe Loi. Further appeals to the Federal Court are pending.