LIM TUCK SUN v 1. ) CELCOM(MALAYSIA)BERHAD 2. ) TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES INDUSTRIES BERHAD 3. ) TAN SRI DATO'TAJUDIN BIN RAMLI 4. ) BISTAMAM BIN RAMLI 5. ) DATO' LIM KHENG YEW 6. ) DIETER SIEBER 7. ) DR FRANK-REINHARD BARTSCH 8. ) JOACHIM GRONAU 9. ) JOERG ANDREAS BOY 10. ) AXEL HASS 11. ) OLIVER TIM AXMANN 12. ) TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD 13. ) DETEASIA HOLDING GMBH 14. ) BERINGIN MURNI SDN BHD

Case Significance

The companion appeal on the appealability of a judgment written to clarify events surrounding a circulated trial video clip, applying the statutory definition of a "decision" under sections 3 and 67(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and considering recusal, intervention and expunging applications.

This Court of Appeal matter is the companion to the related interlocutory appeal arising from the same litigation, in which the Malaysian Bar appeared as an intervener. The applications concerned an application to recuse the High Court Judge, an application for leave to intervene, and an application to expunge parts of the High Court Judge's judgment. The background lay in the wide circulation of a short audio-video clip described as a brief snippet of the trial, in respect of which the High Court Judge had written the judgment that was impugned.

The applications were brought under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b)(i) and (or) (ii) and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012. As in the companion appeal, a central question was whether the decision reflected in the impugned judgment was appealable to the Court of Appeal, which engaged the definition of a "decision" under section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and section 67(1) of that Act. The court considered whether the impugned judgment, written to clarify the sequence of events concerning the video clip, was a discretionary judgment, whether it was necessary, whether the order was made "in the course of a trial", and whether it disposed of the rights of the parties in the main suits.

The analysis proceeds from the principle that not every pronouncement made during a trial amounts to an appealable decision, the statutory test being whether the ruling finally determines the parties' rights. The court's treatment of whether a judgment written to explain the circumstances of a circulated trial clip crossed that threshold, together with the associated recusal and intervention applications in which the Malaysian Bar sought to participate, mirrors its treatment in the companion appeal. The judgment illustrates the appealability threshold under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 as applied to a ruling made in the course of a trial, and the intersection of that threshold with applications for recusal, for leave to intervene and for the expunging of parts of a judgment.