LIN WOON FUI v DATO' TEH CHEE KIEN

Case Significance

Illustrates the exercise of the Court's discretion and inherent jurisdiction to depart from open justice by granting in-camera, non-publication and sealing orders where the matters in a suit are private and familial and an open trial would irreparably prejudice fair-trial and other interests.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application in a defamation suit for a protective order restricting publicity and access to the proceedings. The defendant applied, under section 15(1) and (2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 together with provisions of the Rules of Court 2012 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction, for orders that there be no publication or reporting in the media or on social media of any details of the proceedings or the identities of the parties and witnesses; that the trial be heard in camera to the exclusion of the media and the public; that any transcript be prepared under strict confidentiality; and that the cause papers and affidavits be sealed and inaccessible to third parties. The central question was whether the Court should depart from the ordinary principle of open justice to protect the privacy of what were said to be private, personal and familial matters bound up with the dispute. Weighing the competing interests, the Court found that the matters to be tried were private, personal and familial in nature, that an open trial would occasion irreparable prejudice to the interests of justice and to the right to a fair trial, and that it would also generate irreparable and unnecessary harm to economic interests. Exercising its discretion and inherent jurisdiction, the Court granted a protective order restraining publication of any details or the identities of the parties and witnesses without leave, directing that the proceedings be heard in camera, that the recording and transcript be treated as confidential and released only to the parties and their solicitors, and that the cause papers be sealed save with the leave of the Court. In making these orders the Court sought to reconcile the strong public interest in open justice with the need to try genuinely private and familial matters without exposing the parties to avoidable and irreparable harm, tailoring the restrictions to what the circumstances required rather than closing the proceedings wholesale.