The right to withdraw a defamation suit does not negate the necessity to address injunctions previously granted, particularly when they impact constitutional rights.

[1] The appellant appeals against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who allowed the respondent's application to withdraw his defamation suit notwithstanding:

(a) The High Court had granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the appellant from streaming a Facebook clip of his speech which the respondent claimed was defamatory;

(b) On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the interlocutory injunction; and

(c) The appellant is awaiting an appeal process in the Federal Court on the issue of the interlocutory injunction.

[2] The central contention of the appellant before us was that the respondent ought not to have been allowed to withdraw the suit without the Federal Court deciding on the appellant's appeal and at the most the High Court should have only stayed the proceedings and the prospective orders pending the outcome of the Federal Court's decision. The learned counsel for the appellant's submission on these points inter alia, in verbatim read as follows:

"1.1. At the time the Statement of Claim was filed, the respondent was the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

1.2. The appellant was the Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara and had been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, a standing committee of the Dewan Rakyat. He was also a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Democratic Action Party.

1.3. The respondent sued the appellant for defamation in relation to certain statements made by the appellant in the Parliament building which concerns the interest of the public. The respondent obtained an injunction in the High Court to restrain the appellant from uttering or publishing such statements or similar statements. The Court of Appeal upheld the said injunction. The Federal Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision. This will be explained below.

1.4. It was only after the appellant had obtained leave from the Federal Court that the respondent had applied to discontinue his claim.

2. In essence, it is the appellant's position that discontinuing the proceedings at this stage would be greatly prejudicial to the appellant as the respondent had secured a benefit by obtaining the injunction against the appellant. For clarity, it is not the appellant's position that the respondent should be compelled to prosecute his claim. The appellant's position is that the proceedings should only be discontinued upon the disposal of the appellant's appeal against the injunction in the Federal Court."

[3] The learned counsel for the respondent had specifically set out the incriminating facts and circumstances which led to the interlocutory injunction. That part of the submission read as follows:

"7. The appellant is a member and the National Publicity Secretary of the Democratic Action Party ("DAP") and the Member of Parliament for the Constituency of Petaling Jaya Utara.

8. On 6 April 2016, the appellant had made a statement at the foyer of the Parliament Building whereby this fact has been admitted by the respondent.

9. On 6 April 2017, the appellant had caused to be published through the appellant's Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/MPTonyPua? fref=ts a live video under the caption "After debating a new Tourism tax bill which was passed by the BN MPs at 5am this morning, the Govt abandoned 5 other key bills which were tabled for debate. This is purely to allow for PAS President Dato' Seri Hadi Awang to table his private member's bill to amend RUU355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

Opposition motions and bills have never made it to the House Floor for debate in the history of Malaysian Parliament, because BN controls what gets tabled, in collusion with the House Speaker. The question then must be asked, why did BN - that's UMNO, M