The court affirmed the right of aggrieved parties to intervene and expunge adverse judicial comments, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial impartiality and the necessity of a sound legal basis for judicial decisions.

[1]These are 2 appeals heard together before this Court, namely Civil Appeal No. W-02(IM)-154-01/2023 (“Appeal 154”) and Civil Appeal No. W-02(IM)-155-01/2023 (“Appeal 155”).

[2]Appeal 154 is an application to recuse the Learned High Court Judge (Learned HCJ) from hearing and disposing of the Application to Intervene and Expunge, and is referred to as the “Recusal Application”.

[3]Appeal 155 is an application for leave to intervene (“Intervention Application”) and thereafter, to expunge (“Expunction Application”) parts of the Learned HCJ’s Judgment (Doctored Video Clip) dated 18.2.2022 (“Impugned Judgment”). These applications are collectively referred to as the “Application to Intervene and Expunge”.

[4]The two applications are collectively referred to as the “Applications (2 NAs”). The Applications (2 NAs) were heard and disposed of by the Learned HCJ on 30.12.2022 with the Grounds of Judgment delivered on 20.6.2023 (“the Applications (2 NAs) Judgment”).

[5]It is pertinent to note that the Learned HCJ, despite dismissing the Intervention Application, decided to hear the merits of the Application to Intervene and Expunge, and also the Recusal, and dismissed the same. Both Applications were disposed of on their respective merits.

[6]In these Appeals, the Respondents made no submissions and informed this Court that they were not involved in the Impugned Judgment written by the Learned HCJ. Meanwhile, by application, the Malaysian Bar, through its representative, stands in as amicus curiae to this Court.

[7]The appeals before us centred on a unique fact arising from a judgment written by the Learned HCJ (referred to as the Impugned Judgment, which did not pertain to the main suits, i.e., Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. D5-22-610-2006 (“Suit 610”) and Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. D1 -22-1960-2008 (“Suit 1960”). The aggrieved party in this case is none other than a counsel (the Appellant) who had represented a case in both suits that had been disposed of much earlier. Before we elaborate further, it is beneficial to review the facts that led to the filing of the appeals before us.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[8]The Appellant, Mr. Lim Tuck Sun (“LTS”), was the co-counsel for the fourth to ninth defendants in Suit 610 and the fourth to sixth defendants in Suit 1960 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. These defendants comprise of German individuals and a German company (collectively referred to as the “German Entities”). Their lead counsel was Mr. Christopher Leong Sau Foo, who was assisted by the Appellant. The Learned HCJ presided over both these suits, which were heard concurrently.

[9]On 27.9.2021, the matter was fixed for the examination of Thomas Ach (“Thomas”), one of the witnesses for the Appellant’s clients, via the Zoom platform (“Continued Trial”). During the Continued Trial, there were several objections taken by counsels to questions posed to Thomas, which resulted in heated exchanges between the counsels, namely Mr. Lim Kian Leong (counsel for the first and second defendants), Mr. Lim Tuck Sun and the Learned HCJ. This was reflected in the full transcripts of the Continued Trial and subsequently was highlighted by the Learned HCJ at page 395 of the Impugned Judgment.

[10]In November 2021, there was a confidential out-of-court settlement of the claims in Suit 610 and Suit 1960 involving the German Entities, where both suits were withdrawn against them without the liberty to file afresh and no order as to costs by virtue of a Consent Order dated 19.11.2021. The German Entities ceased to be parties and consequently, the Appellant’s firm’s retainer came to an end.

[11]On or around 19.1.2022, a short audio-video clip of approximately 40 seconds in length (“the Video Clip”) was widely circulated on a mobile messaging application, WhatsApp. It contained a brief snippet of the heated exchanges between the Learned HCJ, the Appellant and Mr. Lim Kian Leong during the Continued Trial. The viral Video Clip captured the Learned HCJ appearing