The court established that a vexatious litigant may be restrained from further legal proceedings without leave, emphasizing judicial efficiency and the need to combat frivolous litigation.

[1] What is the hallmark of a vexatious litigant? The claimant who sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, is termed as a vexatious litigant.

[2] And a vexatious proceeding is one where the vexatious litigant had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience.

[3] In Hardial Singh Sekhon v. PP , 2009 MarsdenLR 2114 , Gopal Sri Ram JCA (later FCJ) speaking for the Court of Appeal spoke of a vexatious litigant in this way (see p. 103 of the report):

The appellant is a declared and gazetted vexatious litigant. He brought an election petition against the former Prime Minister and others claiming relief. The appellant did not obtain leave to bring the petition. Hence the petition was obviously unsustainable and was dismissed out of hand.

[4] On the appropriate sentence to mete out against Hardial Singh Sekhon, his Lordship Gopal Sri Ram JCA (later FCJ) had this to say at p. 103 of the report:

After having heard the appellant and the learned deputy in reply, we came to the conclusion that the term of imprisonment imposed was excessive having regard to the nature of the contempt committed. While it is true that the Court has power to impose a term of imprisonment upon a contemnor, the power is one that should be exercised with circumspection. In this case we agree that having regard to the defiant conduct exhibited by the appellant before the learned judge, imprisonment was well deserved. However, taking into account the obviously frivolous nature of the petition filed, the appellant's stand that he did what he did in the public interest, the appellant's age and the other circumstances of the case, including public interest, we considered a term of eight months imprisonment to be a more appropriate punishment. We therefore set aside the order of the judge and sentenced the appellant to eight months imprisonment.

[5] Sim Kooi Soon, you are a vexatious litigant. You keep on filing the same application one after another. You do not know when to stop. You exhibit the classic symptoms of a variant of de Clerambault's syndrome. It is a syndrome named after a French psychiatrist, Ga tan de Clerambault who described such syndrome as "litigious behaviour" (see Baruk H, "Les d lires passionels" in (1959) 1 Trait de Psychiatrie at pp. 532-540 reproduced in Themes and Variations in European Psychiatry [1974] (editors Hirsch S and Shepherd M)). According to the French psychiatrist Baruk H, patients "... who undertake a series of lawsuits, the first leading to others along with numerous pleas and hearings ... become threatening and insulting and often denounce magistrates, lodge repeated complaints and sometimes become dangerous." The writer further explained that de Clerambault's syndrome does not involve hallucinations. Sufferers, according to the writer, display a vehement and passionate attitude of filing unsustainable claims against others.

[6] As a vexatious litigant you ignored orders from the Court. You were advised to obtain leave from the Federal Court before you pursued the matter further. You were warned as to the consequences of being in contempt of Court. In Sim Kooi Soon v. Malaysia Airlines System ; [2009] MLJU 722 , 2009 MarsdenLR 1787 , this was what Dato' Abdul Malik bin Ishak JCA writing for the Court of Appeal said (see pp.