Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2125
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CELCOM (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DATO TAJUDIN RAMLI & ORS & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Suit Nos: D5-22-610-2006 & D1-22-1960-2008]
The court emphasized the importance of judicial independence, ruling that the intervention and expunction applications were unjustified, and reaffirmed that claims of bias must meet a high threshold to warrant recusal.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 47(1) - Intervention Application - The court examined the merits of applications for intervention, expunction, and recusal in two civil suits, ultimately dismissing all applications due to lack of justification and procedural adherence. The court emphasized the necessity of proper representation and the importance of judicial independence in its decisions. (Paras 17, 19, 41, 42)
(B) Judicial Independence - The court affirmed that its inherent jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances to maintain judicial independence and accountability. (Paras 36, 37)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed suits against individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy, with counterclaims from the defendants. A doctored video related to testimony raised issues of bias and judicial conduct. (Paras 1, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for the claims of bias, recusal, or expunction, emphasizing the importance of context in judicial rulings and the necessity of maintaining clarity in judgments. (Paras 30, 38)
Issues: The court addressed whether to adopt a staggered or joint hearing approach for the applications, the applicability of intervention rules, and the nature of appealability of its decisions. (Paras 17, 42)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the intervention application did not meet necessary criteria and that claims of bias were unfounded, reiterating the principles of judicial independence and the need for clear and justifiable grounds for expunction. (Paras 19, 30)
Result: All applications dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the suits and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
A. Background
[1] In the above two suits (2 Suits):
(1) Civil Suit No: D5-22-610-2006 (1st Suit) has been filed by two plaintiff companies (Plaintiffs) against individual defendants on the ground that they had breached their fiduciary and statutory duties as directors of the Plaintiffs in respect of certain contracts and transactions entered into by the Plaintiffs;
(2) The Plaintiffs alleged in Civil Suit No: D1-22-1960-2008 (2nd Suit) that the seven defendants in the 2nd Suit had conspired, either by lawful or unlawful means, to injure the Plaintiffs and had thereby caused loss to the Plaintiffs; and
(3) Dato' Tajudin Ramli (1st Defendant) and Dato' Bistamam Ramli (2nd Defendant) are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the 2 Suits. The 1st and 2nd Defendants (referred collectively in this judgment as the "Defendants") have filed 2 counterclaims in the 2 Suits (2 Counterclaims) against the Plaintiffs and Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TMB).
[2] The following learned lead counsel appear in the 2 Suits and 2 Counterclaims (2 Suits/2 Counterclaims):
(1) Mr Rabindra Nathan (Mr Rabindra) is the learned lead counsel for the Plaintiffs;
(2) Mr Lim Kian Leong led the Defendants in the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims;
(3) There were certain German individuals and a German company who were defendants in the 2 Suits (collectively referred to in this judgment as the "German Entities"). The learned lead counsel for the German Entities is Mr Christopher Leong Sau Foo (Mr Leong). Mr Leong is assisted by, among others, Mr Lim Tuck Sun; and
(4) TMB's learned lead counsel is Mr Lambert Rasa-Ratnam (Mr Rasa-Ratnam).
[3] On 27 September 2021, the German Entities had called Mr Thomas Ach to testify online in the joint trial of the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims (Mr Ach's Online Testimony).
[4] The 2 Suits were discontinued on 19 November 2021 by the Plaintiffs against the German Entities without any liberty to file afresh and with no order as to costs [Discontinuance Order (German Entities)].
[5] On 21 January 2022, the Plaintiffs' solicitors informed the court about a doctored video clip regarding Mr Ach's Online Testimony (Doctored Video Clip) which had been circulated in the public.
[6] This court has delivered a judgment regarding the Doctored Video Clip - please refer to [2022] 3 MLRH 217; [2022] 4 CLJ 381; [2022] 3 AMR 486 [Judgment (Doctored Video Clip)].
B. Three Applications By Mr Lim Tuck Sun
[7] Initially, Mr Lim Tuck Sun filed a notice of application (1st NA) which applied for the following orders:
(1) Leave of court for Mr Lim Tuck Sun to intervene in the 2 Suits/2 Counterclaims (Intervention Application); and
(2) Parts of the Judgment (Doctored Video Clip) regarding Mr Lim as stated in Appendix 1 to the 1st NA [Impugned Parts (Judgment)] should be expunged by the court (Expunction Application).
[8] In the first case management (CM) of the 1st NA (1st CM):
(1) Mr Kenneth Koh Zhong Wey represented Mr Lim Tuck Sun;
(2) The Plaintiffs, Defendants and TM were represented by learned counsel but the German Entities were not represented;
(3) When the court inquired from Mr Kenneth Koh on why no learned counsel appeared on behalf of the German Entities, Mr Kenneth Koh informed the court that the cause papers for the 1st NA [Cause Papers (1st NA)] had not been served on the solicitors for the German Entities, Messrs Chooi & Company + Cheng & Ariff (Messrs CCA). The court then directed Mr Lim Tuck Sun's solicitors to serve the Cause Papers (1st NA) on Messrs CCA. This is because even if a court matter has been discontinued against a party (X), if a learned counsel or solicitor (Y) (who has represented X in the case) has filed an application in the case after the discontinuance of the matter, Y should serve all cause papers regarding Y's application on X. This is in the interest of justice because X is entitled to know of all developments in the case, especially the filing and outcom
