Legal costs incurred in litigation are not recoverable as special damages in claims between the same parties, following the principle established by the Federal Court.

Introduction

[1] This is the Plaintiffs' application under O 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012) seeking for certain parts of the Defendant's counterclaim to be dismissed (Enclosure 8).

Brief Facts

[2] The 1st Plaintiff (P1) is a holding company and the 2nd Plaintiff (P2) is the Director and Executive Deputy Chairman of P1.

[3] On 25 October 2022, P1 employed the Defendant as its Chief Investment Officer Cum Head of Investor Relations.

[4] At all material times, P1 had planned to undertake an initial public offering on the Main Market of Bursa (IPO Plans). The IPO Plans and the anticipated initial public offering were significant events for P1 and the Defendant was an integral part of the IPO Plans.

[5] On 8 February 2024, the Defendant resigned from P1 and on 9 February 2024, P1 acknowledged and accepted the Defendant's resignation. P1 then informed the Defendant that her last day of employment with P1 would be 7 May 2024 in accordance with the employment contract, that a 3-month notice is required.

[6] Notwithstanding her resignation, the Plaintiff had on or about 29 February 2024 published and/or caused to be published a letter dated 29 February 2024 addressed to the Plaintiffs entitled "Re: Resignation Due To Constructive Dismissal" (Letter).

[7] The Letter is the basis and crux of this suit. The Letter was published to six (6) of P1's officers and/or employees while the IPO Plans were ongoing. The identities of these individuals have been pleaded in the Plaintiffs' claim. The Defendant had also stated in the Letter that she considered herself constructively dismissed from P1 and she will "not be reporting to work with immediate effect".

[8] Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant is for defamation and malicious falsehood. It arises from the publication of the Letter authored by the Defendant, which contained false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiffs.

[9] On the other hand, the Defendant counterclaim against the Plaintiffs premised on the tort of abuse of process. She alleged that the Plaintiffs commenced lawsuits against her, including this action, to intimidate and oppress her instead of seeking for genuine relief.

[10] The Defendant's pleaded losses in her counterclaim that includes legal costs and expenses incurred and/or to be incurred in the lawsuits.

[11] Since the filing of encl 8, the Defendant has made amendments to her counterclaim.

[12] Initially, the Defendant's pleaded counterclaim had alleged abuse of process viz this suit only. The Defendant's amended counterclaim added 2 other lawsuits to her allegations.

[13] Therefore, Enclosure 8 was later amended by the Plaintiffs to include the amended counterclaim of the Defendant. The amended encl 8 is as follows:

1.1. sama ada kos guaman dan perbelanjaan yang ditanggung dan/atau yang akan ditanggung oleh seorang individu dalam menentang suatu guaman boleh menjadi suatu bentuk kerugian dan kerosakan dalam tuntutan yang berdasarkan tort penyalahgunaan proses; ("Persoalan" tersebut)

2. jika Persoalan tersebut telah dijawab secara negatif, iaitu memihak kepada Plainitif-Plaintif, sebahagian daripada tuntutan balas Defendan yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan-perenggan 63.4 (i) 64.1 dan 64.2 dan prayer [1] Pembelaan dan Tuntutan Balas Terpinda Semula Selanjutnya Defendan bertarikh 14 June 2024 [Lampiran 6 18] ditolak dengan kos.

[14] The Defendant has no objections to the amendments.

[15] For completeness, the relief sought in the Defendant's counterclaim are-

(a)