SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2660

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH – Appellant
Versus
HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-23NCvC-114-12-2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Michael Chow,Derek Chong,Koh Chuan Zhan,Neoh Kai Sheng ,Respondent Advocate: Lim Wei Jiet

Statements made in judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege, barring defamation claims arising from such communications.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) - Order 92 Rule 4 - Application to strike out a claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, being vexatious or frivolous, and abuse of the court's process - Letter by solicitor protected by absolute and qualified privilege as it pertains to judicial proceedings; claim struck out. (Paras 1, 3, 21, 32)

(B) Absolute Privilege - Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are covered under absolute privilege, immunizing communications made during such proceedings from defamation claims. (Paras 24, 25)

(C) Qualified Privilege - Communication among parties involved in legal proceedings can qualify for privilege, provided there is a bona fide interest or duty in the communication. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a former MP and lawyer, brought a defamation claim against his granddaughter over statements made in a letter by her solicitors. The 1st Defendant contended that the claims were frivolous and amounted to an abuse of the court's process. (Paras 6-8)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the statements were protected by absolute and qualified privilege, leading to the striking out of the claim and awarding costs to the 1st Defendant. (Paras 21, 32)

Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is scandalous, frivolous, or an abuse of process. (Paras 10-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements made in the context of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, and that privilege extends to letters issued by solicitors concerning ongoing litigation, justifying the dismissal of the claim. (Paras 21-30)

Result: Application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim allowed with costs of RM15,000.00 awarded to the 1st Defendant.

Table of Content
1. application for striking out claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. background of parties and related suits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. defendant's arguments on cause of action. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. plaintiff argues status of claim as sustainable. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. principles of privilege in defamation. (Para 19 , 20)
6. defendant's letter protected by privilege. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. analysis on absolute and qualified privilege. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. judicial consideration of submissions. (Para 31)
9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 32)
Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

(Enclosure 25: Striking Out Of The Plaintiff's Claim Against The 1st Defendant)

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the 1st Defendant pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court (" ROC ") 2012 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to O 92 r 4 of the 2012 for an Order that:

a) the Plaintiff's endorsement to the Writ dated 28 December 2021 and the Statement of Claim dated 28 December 2021 against the 1st Defendant be struck out;

b) costs of this application and the action herein be paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant on an indemnity basis; and

c) any and/or such other reliefs and/or orders deemed fit and/or suitable by this Honourable Court.

[2] The Plaintiff's claim herein against the 1st Defendant:

(i) does not disclose any reasonable cause of action and/or does not contain sufficient particulars to constitute a cause of action;

(ii) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

(iii) will prejudice, embarrass or delay a fair trial of the matter; and/or

(iv) is an abuse of the process of the Court.

[3] This application was heard together with the Notice of Application by the 2nd Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff's claims in Encl 26 pursuant to O 34 r 2(2)(t) & (u) ROC 2012.

[4] The grounds in support of the application herein are set out in the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Hannah Kam Zhen Yi filed on 24 March 2022 (Encl 24) and are to be read together in support of the application herein.

[5] The cause papers filed in relation to Encl 25 are as follows:

a) 1st Defendant's Affidavit in Support (Encl 24) and Reply Affidavit (Encl 46);

b) Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply (Encl 34);

c) Notis Niat Menggunakan Afidavit (Encls 47 and 70);

d) Plaintiff's Written Submissions, Submissions in Reply and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 66, 67 and 164); and

e) 1st Defendant's Written Submissions and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 71, 72 and 73).

Brief Facts

[6] The Plaintiff, Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah, was a respected lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and former Secretary-General of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), who is no longer in active legal practice but remains a prominent businessman.

[7] The 1st Defendant, Hannah Kam Zhen Yi, is the Plaintiff's granddaughter, who has been disowned by him. There are ongoing legal proceedings between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.

[8] The 2nd Defendant is a legal firm. The 2nd Defendant was the 1st Defendant's previous solicitors in a separate Court proceeding viz Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-140-03-2018 [Tan Sri Dato Kam Woon Wah v. Hannah Kam Zhen Yi & Anor [2021] MLRHU 2375] ("Suit 140").

[9] The details with respect to Suit 140 are as follows:

(a) Suit 140 represents a suit initiated by the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant and Ong Yue Guan, filed on 21 March 2018.

(b) Proceedings for Suit 140 concluded and decision was given on 26 May 2023 in favour of the Plaintiff.

(c) The solicitors acting for the Plaintiff was Messrs YC Wong.

(d) The subject matter of Suit 140 and this alleged defamation claim filed on 28 December 2021 are separate and distinct from each other.

(e) However, the Plaintiff's defamation claim arises from a sole letter issued by the 2nd Defendant dated 9 December 2021 (Encl 27 pp 56-62) in respect of Suit 140.

Submissions Of 1st Defendant

Issue 1: No Reasonable Cause Of Action

Absolute Privilege

[10] The 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top