The court established that repeated breaches of a Vexatious Litigant Order constitute contempt, warranting custodial sentences to uphold judicial authority and deter future violations.

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] The Appellant's notice of appeal filed at the Court of Appeal stated that he is appealing against this Court's decision on 30 April 2025. However, this Court did not deliver any decision on 30 April 2025. This case was not scheduled for mention or hearing on 30 April 2025.

[2] It referred to the Respondent's application dated 24 January 2025. If so, it is encl 53, which is the application for committal against the Applicant for contempt of Court under O 52 r 2 Rules of Court 2012 (RoC). The Appellant was not present in Court for the hearing of encl 53 on 29 April 2025. After standing the matter down to wait for the Appellant, this Court finally heard the submissions from the Respondent's counsel in support of committing the Appellant for contempt of Court. The Respondent seeks an order that the Defendant be committed to prison for wilfully and persistently breaching the Court Order dated 16 July 2024 by filing multiple legal proceedings without obtaining leave of this Court as required.

Background Facts

[3] On 16 July 2024, this Court granted an order declaring the Defendant a vexatious litigant and restraining him from commencing any legal proceedings in any Court in Malaysia without the leave of the High Court of Malaya.

The Vexatious Litigant Order specifically provided that:

(a) The Appellant is declared a vexatious litigant;

(b) The Appellant is prohibited from commencing any further legal proceedings in any Court in Malaysia except with leave of the High Court of Malaya;

(c) The above orders be gazetted;

(d) Costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent forthwith subject to allocator fees; and

(e) Liberty to apply.

[4] The Vexatious Litigant Order was duly served on the Appellant via the Respondent's solicitors' letter dated 18 July 2024. The Appellant has had knowledge of the said Order since July 2024. To date, no appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Vexatious Litigant Order, and the Vexatious Litigant Order remains binding and enforceable.

The Alleged Acts Of Contempt

[5] Despite the clear prohibition in the Vexatious Litigant Order, the evidence before this Court established that the Appellant has committed 14 separate acts of contempt by filing legal proceedings without obtaining the required leave of the Court. These 14 acts of contempt occurred between 24 July 2024 and 6 January 2025, all after the Vexatious Litigant Order was granted and served. The details of these 14 acts of contempt are comprehensively set out in the Plaintiff's affidavits filed in support of this application and are exhibited therein. Summarily, the acts include:

(a) First to Fifth Acts of Contempt - Multiple applications in Shah Alam High Court proceedings;

(b) Sixth and Seventh Acts of Contempt - applications and appeal in this Court (WA-24NCvC-1212-03/2024);

(c) Eighth to Eleventh Acts of Contempt - multiple applications in Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No WA- 24NCvC-3530-09/2024;

(d) Twelfth to Fourteenth Acts of Contempt - multiple applications in Kuala Lumpur High Court Application for Judicial Review No WA-25-219-05/2024;

Aggravating Factors

[6] Several aggravating factors make the Appellant's conduct particularly serious and warrant a significant custodial sentence:

(a) Persistence and Repetition - A Pattern of Deliberate Defiance The Appellant committed 14 separate acts of contempt over a period of approximately six (6) months from 24 July 2024 to 6 January 2025. This was not a momentary lapse of judgment or a single instance of non-compliance, but rather a sustained campaign of deliberate and persistent disobedience to this Court's authority. The temporal sequence of the breaches demonstrated escalating defiance as the first breach occurred merely 8 days after service of the Vexatious Litigant Order. Multiple breaches occurred within the same proceedings, showing the Appellant's complete disregard for the prohibition in the Vexatious Litigant Order. The breaches continued