CELCOM (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR vs TAN SRI DATO TAJUDIN RAMLI & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2022 MarsdenLR 1809

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CELCOM (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DATO TAJUDIN RAMLI & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Suit Nos: D5-22-610-2006 & D1-22-1960-2008]

Important Points

The creation and distribution of a doctored video recording of court proceedings constitutes contempt of court and can lead to criminal liability and professional misconduct claims.

Subject

Civil Law - Court Administration

Act Referred

Courts of Judicature Act 1964: S.3
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998: S.233
Penal Code: S.499, S.500
Legal Profession Act 1976: S.94, S.99

Headnote

(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Section 3 – Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 – Section 233 – Penal Code – Sections 499 and 500 – Legal Profession Act 1976 – Sections 94, and 99 – This judgment addresses the unauthorized and doctored recording of a court proceeding via remote communication. The court emphasized that contempt was committed and individuals involved could face both criminal and disciplinary action. The act of defaming a senior Advocate & Solicitor with false representation was classified as actionable under defamation laws. (Paras 1-3, 33-43)

(B) Contempt of court – Definition and understanding – The transmission of a falsified video recording can bring the court into disrepute and stigmatizes judicial authority. The gravity of this action is underscored by penalties under the law. (Paras 33-37)

(C) Rights of A&S – The court ruled that an A&S involved in disseminating a doctored recording may eventually face disciplinary actions reflective of their misconduct. (Paras 42-46)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the judgment in Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd & Anor – Appellant versus Tan Sri Dato Tajudin Ramli & Ors:

Case Context and Proceedings
- The judgment concerns the joint trial of two civil suits (Suit Nos: D5-22-610-2006 & D1-22-1960-2008) involving plaintiffs, defendants, and German Entities (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The trial involved remote communication technology (Zoom video conferencing) for witnesses in Germany due to the COVID-19 pandemic (!) (!) (!) .
- A specific witness, Mr. Thomas Martin Ach, testified on 27 September 2021 despite a family bereavement, requiring him to catch a specific train from Munich (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Conduct of Counsel and Court Rulings
- The court noted contentious conduct by Mr. Lim Tuck Sun, who raised multiple unnecessary objections during the cross-examination of Mr. Ach, prolonging the proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The court overruled several of Mr. Lim Tuck Sun's objections based on the right to cross-examine under Section 146(a) of the Evidence Act 1950 to test the witness's credibility (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The court considered whether to complain to the Disciplinary Board (DB) regarding Mr. Lim Tuck Sun's conduct but ultimately decided not to, citing the heat of battle and the subsequent amicable settlement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Doctored Video Clip and Contempt of Court
- An unlawful 40-second audio-visual recording (Video Clip) of Mr. Ach's testimony was made and subsequently doctored (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The doctored clip falsely depicted the judge asking Mr. Lim Kian Leong (instead of Mr. Lim Tuck Sun) questions and implied the judge intended to complain against Mr. Lim Kian Leong to the DB (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The making and transmission of this doctored clip constituted contempt of court by scandalizing the court and lowering the judge's authority (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Liabilities and Offences
- Contempt of Court: The act scandalized the court and brought the judicial authority into disrepute (!) (!) (!) .
- Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA):
  - Making the false communication (Video Clip) is an offence under Section 233(1)(a)(i) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  - Knowingly transmitting the false communication is an offence under Section 233(1)(a)(ii) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Penal Code:
  - The doctored clip constituted criminal defamation under Section 499 against Mr. Lim Kian Leong (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
  - Punishable under Section 500 with imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine (!) (!) .
- Legal Profession Act 1976:
  - Individuals involved in making or distributing the clip may face disciplinary sanctions under Section 94(3)(o) for conduct unbefitting an A&S or bringing the profession into disrepute (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Civil Liability: Mr. Lim Kian Leong may institute a civil suit for the tort of defamation (!) (!) (!) .
Court's Response and Epilogue
- The court directed a case management meeting on 25 January 2022 to address the incident (!) (!) .
- Counsel confirmed that A&S and pupils in their firms were not involved in the making or transmission of the clip (!) .
- The court affirmed it was not influenced by the clip and would decide the suits based on trial evidence and law (!) (!) .
- The judge apologized to Mr. Lim Kian Leong for speaking to him in an offensive manner during the trial, which he later accepted no need for (!) .
- The judgment serves to record the actual events regarding Mr. Ach's testimony to clarify the record (!) (!) .

Petitioner Advocates:Rabindra S Nathan,Nad Segaram,how Xing Hui ,Respondent Advocate: Lim Kian Leong,Tobias Lim Koon Li

JUDGMENT

Wong Kian Kheong J:

Introduction

[1] In the joint trial of the above two cases (Trial), Mr Thomas Martin Ach (Mr Ach) gave evidence on 27 September 2021 in Munich, Germany through "remote communication technology" (as defined in s 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ). Our courts use the "Zoom video conferencing" for online court proceedings (Zoom Hearing).

[2] This judgment concerns an unlawful 40-second audio-visual recording of Mr Ach's testimony (Video Clip) made by unknown person(s) from the court's record of the Zoom Hearing (court's Zoom Record).

[3] This judgment is written because the Video Clip has been doctored and a senior Advocate and Solicitor (A&S), Mr Lim Kian Leong, has been defamed as a result. More importantly, it is in the public interest regarding the due administration of justice for members of the public, in particular practising A&S, to be aware of the following adverse consequences in respect of the making and distribution of the doctored Video Clip:

(1) contempt of court has been committed regarding the doctored Video Clip;
(2) the possible commission of an offence under s 233(1)(a)(i) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) of knowingly making a false communication in the form of the doctored Video Clip;
(3) when a person knowingly transmits the doctored Video Clip, an offence pursuant to s 233(1)(a)(ii) CMA may have been committed;
(4) criminal defamation of Mr Lim Kian Leong under s 499 of the Penal Code ( PC ) has been committed;
(5) with regard to the doctored Video Clip, Mr Lim Kian Leong may institute a civil suit for tort of defamation; and
(6) any A&S and/or pupil who is involved in the making and/or distribution of the doctored Video Clip may have committed a disciplinary offence under s 94(3)(o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) and may be liable for disciplinary sanction by Disciplinary Board (DB).

Background

[4] In Civil Suit No: D5-22-610-2006 (First Suit), the plaintiff companies (plaintiffs) claimed, among others, that nine individual defendants in the First Suit had breached their fiduciary and statutory duties as directors of the plaintiffs regarding, among others, certain contracts and transactions entered into by the plaintiffs.

[5] The plaintiffs alleged in Civil Suit No: D1-22-1960-2008 (Second Suit) that the 7th defendant in the Second Suit had conspired, either by lawful or unlawful means, to injure the plaintiffs and had thereby caused loss to the plaintiffs.

[6] Tan Sri Dato' Tajudin Ramli (1st defendant) and Dato' Bistamam Ramli (2nd defendant) are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the First and Second Suits ("Two Suits"). The 1st and 2nd defendants have filed two counterclaims in the Two Suits against the plaintiffs and Telekom Malaysia Bhd (TMB).

[7] The following German individuals and German company (collectively referred to in this judgment as the "German Entities") have been sued in the Two Suits:

(1) the 4th to 9th defendants in the First Suit. Sadly, the 6th defendant has passed on; and
(2) the 4th to 6th defendants in the Second Suit.

[8] The following learned lead counsel appear before me:

(1) Mr Rabindra Nathan (Mr Rabindra) acts for the plaintiffs;
(2) Mr Lim Kian Leong appears for the 1st and 2nd defendants;
(3) the learned lead counsel for the German Entities is Mr Christopher Leong Sau Foo (Mr Leong). Mr Leong is assisted by Mr Lim Tuck Sun. I will explain later in this judgment regarding Mr Lim Tuck Sun's statements and conduct in court in respect of Mr Ach's testimony; and
(4) TMB's learned lead counsel is Mr Lambert Rasa-Ratnam (Mr Lambert).

[9] Before 27 September 2021, the following parties have closed their case at the Trial:

(1) the plaintiffs;
(2) the 1st and 2nd defendants; and
(3) TMB.

[10] The German Entities had initially called witnesses to give evidence in court but due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and "Lockdown" in Malaysia (both total and partial), all the parties in the Two Suits subsequently consented to a court order for the last four remaining w

2022 MarsdenLR 1809

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURCELCOM (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR – AppellantVersusTAN SRI DATO TAJUDIN RAMLI & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE – Respondent[Suit Nos: D5-22-610-2006 & D1-22-1960-2008]

Important Points

Subject

Act Referred

Headnote

Cases Referred (3)

Login now and unlock premium legal research

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CELCOM (MALAYSIA) BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DATO TAJUDIN RAMLI & ORS AND ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Suit Nos: D5-22-610-2006 & D1-22-1960-2008]