Kok Kon Sang v 1. ) LEE TZE JUIN/MESSRS. ZARINA LOH & WONG 2. ) LIM CHEW LIANG 3. ) PENTADBIR TANAH & GALIAN/ ATAU MOHD. NASRUL BIN MOHD. NAWI

Case Significance

Confirms that a person declared a vexatious litigant cannot commence even a judicial-review leave application without first obtaining the leave required by the vexatious-litigant order; filing without that leave defeats the order's purpose and the application will be struck out.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings under Order 53 rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, brought by a person who had earlier been declared a vexatious litigant. In 2024 the applicant had been declared a vexatious litigant by the Kuala Lumpur High Court and, by that order and a corresponding gazette notification, was prohibited from commencing any further legal proceedings in any court in Malaysia except with the leave of the High Court in Malaya. Notwithstanding that prohibition, the applicant filed the present leave application, seeking among other things to set aside earlier court orders, to strike out the vexatious-litigant gazette notification, to sue two of the respondents for RM1.5 million in defamation, and to cancel a land sale. The court permitted the first and second respondents to be heard as putative respondents on an opposed ex parte basis, because they raised a valid point of law that would save judicial time. That point was decisive: by virtue of the vexatious-litigant order and gazette notification, the applicant was barred from filing the leave application without first obtaining the requisite leave of the High Court, and up to the hearing he had produced no evidence that such leave had been obtained, nor had he served the cause papers on the Attorney General's Chambers as directed. The court found a pattern of the applicant giving various excuses to avoid attending court, being aware that a warrant of committal had been issued for his arrest, and held that to hear the application without prior leave would defeat the very purpose of the vexatious-litigant order. The court declined to consider a written submission the applicant had filed late without leave, and dismissed as baseless his allegation that the judge hearing the matter had a serious conflict of interest. It accordingly struck out the leave application; dissatisfied, the applicant filed a notice of appeal.