Late appearance in court necessitates obtaining leave to serve a defence, failure to do so is considered an abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah JC:

(Enclosure 45)

Preliminary

[1] This action involves the plaintiff, who is the Minister of Health, suing the defendant, an Islamic preacher, over some alleged defamatory statements allegedly authored and published by the defendant. In the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff complained of some procedural non-compliance on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff contends that the defendant entered a late appearance despite the fact that the Writ and Statement of Claim were properly served on him. The plaintiff further contends that, under these circumstances, the defendant should not have filed the Statement of Defence and Amended Statement of Defence without first obtaining this Court's leave.

[2] As a result, the plaintiff is now applying by way of encl 45 for an order that the Statement of Defence dated 14 June 2022 ("Statement of Defence") and Amended Statement of Defence dated 27 June 2022 ("Amended Statement of Defence") be struck out or set side pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of 2012 and/or O 12 r 5(2) of the Rules of 2012 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 on the grounds that, amongst others, the pleadings are an abuse of the process of the Court.

An Overview Of The Background Facts

[3] At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic between 10 March 2020 and 16 August 2021, the plaintiff served as Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation ("MOSTI"). This role entailed the following responsibilities for the plaintiff:

(a) facilitating science diplomacy towards securing a vaccine for COVID-19;

(b) overseeing the National Science Policy to encourage the development of science in Malaysia;

(c) championing technology adoption acceleration across the public and private sectors, including the creation of the National Innovation and Technology Sandbox;

(d) co-chairperson of the Digital Economic Task Force together with the Minister of Communications and Multimedia;

(e) chairperson of the National Innovation and Technology Sandbox Working Committee; and

(f) committee member of the National Food Security Council.

[4] During the plaintiff's tenure as Minister for MOSTI, the plaintiff served as the Co-Chair of 'Jawatankuasa Khas Jaminan Akses Bekalan Vaksin COVID-19 ("JKJAV")' together with the then Minister of Health. JKJAV was established in order to ensure that the COVID-19 vaccines could be obtained in a prompt, safe and effective manner.

[5] At the same time, the plaintiff was also appointed by the Cabinet to act as the Coordinating Minister of the National COVID-19 Immunisation Programme ("NIP") and to lead the COVID-19 Immunisation Task Force ("CITF"). CITF was assigned the responsibility of coordinating the implementation of NIP with regard to aspects other than health services. This included issues relating to logistics and coordination with government agencies and states.

[6] Through the CITF, the plaintiff led the nation's efforts to immunise Malaysians against the COVID-19 pandemic and amongst the duties the plaintiff was tasked with and/or involved in were:

(a) to plan, implement and monitor supply and distribution of vaccines, vaccination registration and the operations of "Pusat Simpanan Vaksin" ("PSV") and "Pusat Pemberian Vaksin" ("PPV") as well as managing risks throughout the implementation of the NIP;

(b) to appoint and mobilise members, experts and consultants from the government and private sectors for the implementation of the NIP;

(c) to provide necessary solutions and interventions to key issues and challenges associated with the implementation of the NIP; and

(d) to report periodically to the Cabinet, the National Security Council and the government about CITF's progress.

[7] Returning to the present issues, the alleged defamatory statements allegedly authored and published by the defendant were directly related to the plaintiff's roles and responsibilities as explained above. It also relates to the plaintiff taking a prominent role in leading Malaysia's vaccination prog