DATIN SERI TAN BEE GEOK v DATO SERI THAI KIM SIM

Case Significance

The companion protective-order ruling applying the same framework — reporting restrictions, an in camera hearing and a sealing order — under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Orders 34, 38 and 92 of the Rules of Court 2012, balancing open justice against confidentiality, with costs in the cause.

This High Court (Kuala Lumpur) decision concerns a defendant's application for a protective order in a civil suit that is a companion to related proceedings between the same defendant and another plaintiff. As in the related suit, the application was brought under section 15(1) and (2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, Order 34 rule 1(1)(b), Order 34 rule 7, Order 38 rule 1 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 and the court's inherent jurisdiction, and it sought orders restricting publicity and access to the proceedings.

The relief sought comprised a prohibition on any publication or reporting, in the media or on social media, of details relating to the proceedings, the identities and details of the parties and the identities and details of the witnesses, without leave of court; an order that the proceedings be heard in camera to the exclusion of the media, the public, journalists and any individual not directly taking part; and an order that recordings of the in camera proceedings be transcribed only by a transcriber bound by a strict non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement.

Addressing the application, the court considered the interplay between open justice and the confidentiality interests said to warrant restrictions on reporting and access, and the scope of its powers to make such orders. Its resulting orders provided that the proceedings be heard in camera to the exclusion of the media and any individual not directly a party, that the recording and transcript be treated as confidential and given only to the parties and their solicitors, and, by way of a sealing order, that all cause papers, affidavits, supporting documents and notes of proceedings filed electronically in the case management system be sealed and made inaccessible to third parties save with leave, together with the incorporation of the prescribed penal-notice form. Costs of the application were costs in the cause. The judgment mirrors the framework applied in the companion suit for reporting restrictions, in camera hearings and sealing orders.