JUDGMENT

[1] The appellants appealed against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who had allowed the respondent's application for pre-action discovery pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).

[2] Both parties among other cases had relied on the Court of Appeal's case of Infoline Sdn Bhd v. Benjamin Lim Keong Hoe [2017] 4 MLRA 203; [2017] 6 MLJ 363; [2017] 8 CLJ 554, a judgment of Her Ladyship Dato' Mary Lim Thiam Suan who is also a panel member of this coram. The judgment extensively deals with the new provision of the Rules namely O 24 r 7A which was introduced and discussed in quite a number of cases from other jurisdictions. Those cases give a multifold ideas, views and opinions on how to exercise a discretion vested in the court and court alone. The articulate discussion of the relevant cases in our view will stand as some form of guidance for the trial courts to be guided when dealing with O 24 r 7A of ROC 2012. To appreciate our judgment and to avoid repetition of the cases related to O 24 r 7A, the judgment of Her Ladyship must be read together with this judgment.

[3] It is trite that an appellate court will be slow in intervening in the discretionary exercise of the trial court. [See Kyros International Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri [2013] 3 MLRA 179; [2013] 2 MLJ 650; [2013] 3 CLJ 813; [2013] 4 AMR 55; ECM Libra Investment Bank Berhad v. Foo Ai Meng & Ors [2014] 1 MLRA 275; [2013] 3 MLJ 35; [2013] 3 AMR 8]. In the instant case, we find that the jurisprudence advocated by the trial court to grant the order was jurisprudentially flawed and in consequence we had no other alternative but to allow the appeal in limine.