Kee Hui Yee

On the court record

The reported matters place counsel work across constitutional interpretation, civil-appeal evidence, tribunal judicial review and defamation, including a Federal Court appearance, grounded in the judgments.

Kee Hui Yee's reported matters combine constitutional work at the apex court with civil appeals, judicial review and defamation in the High Court. At the constitutional end, the profile includes a Federal Court appeal concerning section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and the constitutionality of penal words such as offensive and annoy, measured against the free-speech guarantee in Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, in which the appearance was as counsel for an intervener.

Civil-appeal and evidence questions feature in a High Court appeal at Shah Alam from a Sessions Court decision, where the disputed issues were whether an alleged payment of RM980,000 had been proved, the drawing of an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, and res judicata. Appearing for the respondent, the Court held that the appellants had not established any appealable error in the Sessions Court's dismissal and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM8,000.

The profile also reaches administrative and reputational litigation. In a High Court judicial review at Kuala Lumpur, an application sought to stay an award of the Tribunal for Anti-Sexual Harassment (recorded on a Borang 4) pending the substantive certiorari challenge; acting for a respondent, the stay application was found to have no merit and was dismissed with costs. In a separate High Court defamation appeal at Shah Alam, turning on the defence of justification under section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 and whether the defamatory imputations were substantially true, she appeared for the appellant, and the Court allowed the appeals with costs of RM25,000. A thread across several of these matters is the treatment of proof and inference, from whether a large payment had been established, to the drawing of an adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950, to whether defamatory imputations were substantially true. The reported work therefore ranges across constitutional interpretation before the Federal Court, civil-appeal evidence, tribunal judicial review and defamation before the High Court.