Lim Tuck Sun v Celcom (Malaysia) Berhad & Ors

Appellant(s): Lim Tuck Sun

Respondent(s):

• Celcom(Malaysia)Berhad
• Technology Resources Industries Berhad
• Tan Sri Dato'Tajudin Bin Ramli
• Bistamam Bin Ramli
• Dato' Lim Kheng Yew
• Dieter Sieber
• Dr Frank-Reinhard Bartsch
• Joachim Gronau
• Joerg Andreas Boy
• Axel Hass
• Oliver Tim Axmann
• Telekom Malaysia Berhad
• Deteasia Holding Gmbh
• Beringin Murni Sdn Bhd

• YA Dato' Sri Mariana binti Haji Yahya
• YA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin

• The appellant, a counsel, sought to intervene in concluded civil suits to expunge a High Court judgment ("Impugned Judgment") containing critical remarks about his conduct during a virtual trial.
• The Impugned Judgment was issued by the High Court Judge on his own motion, ostensibly to clarify events surrounding a viral video clip of court proceedings, after the main suits had been settled.
• The appellant also applied for the High Court Judge's recusal from hearing the intervention and expunction applications, but all applications were dismissed by the High Court.

• Whether the High Court's "Impugned Judgment" constituted a legally appealable "decision" under Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964).
• Whether the appellant's applications for intervention, expunction, and recusal were appealable orders or non-appealable rulings.
• Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the intervention and expunction applications, particularly regarding the applicability of Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
• Whether the High Court Judge ought to have recused himself from hearing the appellant's applications due to a real danger of bias.

• The Court held that the Impugned Judgment was not a "decision" under Section 3 CJA 1964, as it did not arise from a "cause or matter" and lacked the characteristics of a formal judgment, rendering it unnecessary.
• The Court ruled that the appellant's applications were appealable orders, being independent of the main suits and not merely rulings made in the course of a trial that did not finally dispose of parties' rights.
• The Court found the High Court erred in not invoking its inherent jurisdiction to allow intervention and expunction, as Order 15 Rule 6 ROC 2012 was inapplicable and the appellant was an aggrieved non-party.
• The Court concluded there was a real danger of bias, given the extrajudicial nature and intemperate language of the Impugned Judgment, and allowed the appeals, ordering the Impugned Judgment to be expunged in its entirety.