Parties must file clear and specific notices of appeal against multiple judgments to prevent ambiguity and ensure procedural fairness.

Vernon Ong FCJ:

Introduction

[1] These two appeals emanated from two distinct and separate actions involving different parties; one action (Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. Khairy Jamaluddin) was tried in the Kuala Lumpur High Court and the other action (Man Seng Trading & Marketing Sdn Bhd v. Guinness Anchor Marketing Berhad) was tried in the Seremban High Court. Khairy Jamaluddin's appeal to the Court of Appeal was struck out as was Guinness Anchor's appeal to the Court of Appeal. We heard the two appeals together since the questions of law in both appeals relate to the striking out of the appellants' respective notices of appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is ambiguous, defective and bad in law.

[2] The questions of law for this Court's determination fall within the realm of adjectival law also called procedural law - the area of law that deals with the rules of procedure governing evidence, pleadings and practice. As such, we think that it is sufficient to set out the salient facts leading up to the striking out of the two notices of appeal in question.

Khairy Jamaluddin's Appeal No: 02(f)-43-04-2019 (1st Appeal)

[3] The 1st Appeal relates to the appellant's Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal which was struck out after the Court of Appeal upheld the respondent's preliminary objection on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal is ambiguous, invalid and unlawful as it was filed against two separate orders issued by the High Court.

Questions of Law

[4] The appellant obtained leave of this Court to appeal on the following three questions of law:

Whether the Federal Court's decision in Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil Selvi Alau Malay @ Anna Malay & Ors, 2017 MarsdenLR 1054 can be interpreted as prohibiting the filing of a single Notice of Appeal in relation to the following circumstances:

(a) Where there is the sole plaintiff and sole defendant in the suit concerned;

(b) Where the single judgment delivered on a date at the end of the whole trial in a defamation suit pertains to the judgment favouring the plaintiff's claim which included the rejection of the application by the defendant to amend the re-amended defence of fair comment; and

(c) Where the single Notice of Appeal specified in the said appeal pertains to the whole of the said judgment including the matter decided pertaining to the said application to amend, taking into consideration the adoption by the Federal Court of the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the written judgment of the latter emanating from the same case.

[5] In this case the appellant/defendant had filed an application to amend the Re-Amended Defence ('the Amendment Application') after the trial on the evidence had been concluded. Subsequently, the learned trial judge heard submissions in respect of both the Amendment Application and after trial together. After hearing of submissions, the learned trial judge delivered his oral decisions in respect of the Amendment Application and the trial. The Amendment Application was dismissed and the respondent/plaintiff's claim in damages for defamation was allowed with costs. Separate orders were issued by the High Court in respect of the decision after trial and the decision dismissing the Amendment Application. The appellant, dissatisfied with the two decisions filed a single Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal in question reads as follows:

"SILA AMBIL PERHATIAN bahawa Khairy Jamaludin, perayu/defendan yang dinamakan di atas yang tidak berpuas hati dengan keseluruhan keputusan Yang Arif Tuan Azizul Azmi bin Adnan yang diberikan di Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur pada 29 haribulan September 2017, termasuk (tetapi tidak terhad) kepada Kandungan 129 (permohonan defendan untuk meminda "Pembelaan Terpinda Semula" bertarikh 11 Februari 2016, yang difailkan pada 14 Mac 2017), dengan ini ingin merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keseluruhan keputusan tersebut di mana tuntutan plaintif telah dibenarkan ..."

[6] Incidentally, it i