Lim Jen Lin @ Lim Jen Ling v Petronas Refinery and Petrochemical Corporation Sdn Bhd & Anor

Appellant(s): Lim Jen Lin @ Lim Jen Ling

Respondent(s):

• Petronas Refinery And Petrochemical Corporation Sdn Bhd
• Petroliam Nasional Berhad

• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Dato' Azizul Azmi Bin Adnan
• Dato' Dr. Choo Kah Sing

• The High Court declared the appellant a vexatious litigant based on several prior proceedings and restrained the appellant from instituting or continuing legal actions against the respondents without first obtaining leave from the High Court.
• The High Court further ordered that the declaration be published in the Federal Gazette and other legal databases, including LawNet and the website of Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.
• After the High Court dismissed an initial application for a stay, the appellant applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of the High Court Order pending the final disposal of the main appeal.

• Whether the appellant demonstrated "special circumstances" as required under Section 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Rule 13 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 to justify a stay of execution.
• Whether the impending publication of the vexatious litigant order in the Federal Gazette would render the appellant’s appeal nugatory if the stay were refused.
• How the Court should exercise its judicial discretion in balancing the competing interests of the parties and the "balance of convenience" regarding irreversible reputational harm.

• The Court allowed the stay of execution, holding that the publication of the order in the Federal Gazette and online databases is irreversible and would cause irreparable harm to the appellant’s personal and professional standing.
• The Court reaffirmed that the risk of an appeal being rendered nugatory is a paramount consideration, and in this case, the appellant could not be restored to their former position once the public record was created.
• The Court determined that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant, as the substantial prejudice to the appellant’s reputation and economic opportunities could not be adequately compensated by an award of costs or damages.