(iii) refusal to comply with the rules and directions afforded and resulted in delay and unnecessary prolongation of the Defendant’s Proceedings [11] During the time of the Defendant’s Proceedings, the Defendant remained unrepresented and the courts have granted the Defendant, ample opportunities and time to establish her claim but failed. Thus, leading to never-ending proceedings. [12] The Plaintiffs contended that it is clear that the Defendant had abused the Court’s process by filing a similar Writ of Summons dated 31.07.2021 at two (2) different courts in Suit 4636 and Suit 4637, wherein the reliefs sought are exactly similar and the only difference being the Defendant’s name in Suit 4636 was “A.B” while in the Suit 4637, the Defendant is known as “Lim Jen Ling @ Lim Jen Ling”. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [13] The fact remains that the Defendant had failed to file an affidavit in reply to dispute or oppose the Plaintiffs’ Affidavits. [14] In Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Berhad [1995] 1 MLRA 48; [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [2000] 1 CLJ 503, the Court of Appeal held- “[10] Now, it is a well settled principle governing the evaluation of affidavit evidence that where one party makes a positive assertion upon a material issue, the failure of his opponent to contradict is usually treated as an admission by him of the fact so asserted: Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v. Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd [1985] 1 MLRA 309;; [1986] 1 MLJ 382;; [1986] 1 CLJ 45; Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v. O’Brien [1988] 1 MLRH 627;; [1988] 3 MLJ 332;; [1988] 2 CLJ 82.:” [15] Applying the principle in Ng Hee Thoong (supra) to the facts of Enclosure 1, the Defendant has not opposed to the Plaintiff’s Affidavits and thus, presumed to admit the propositions put forward by the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs’ Affidavits. [16] Apparently, even though the Defendant as a litigant is unrepresented, she was a former senior legal manager of P1 having legal background, and afforded with numerous opportunities yet refused to abide by the directions given by this Court and subsequently, failed to file an Affidavit in Reply. Vexatious Litigant [17] To begin with, paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the CJA describes a vexatious litigant as a person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different persons. [18] The term ‘vexatious litigant’ as provided in paragraph 17 under section 25(2) of the CJA provides- “17. Power to restrain any person who has habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings in any court, whether against the same or different persons, from instituting legal proceedings in any court save by leave of a Judge. A copy of any such order shall be published in the Gazette.” [19] The main issue which this Court has to consider is what are the characteristics of a vexatious litigant in the light of paragraph 17 of the Schedule? [20] In Sim Kooi Soon v. Malaysia Airline System (No 2) [2011] 4 MLJ 728, where the Appellant had filed numerous judicial review applications of the same nature with minor variations in the proceedings, the Court of Appeal held- “[1] What is the hallmark of a vexatious litigant? The claimant who sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, is termed as a vexatious litigant. [2] And a vexatious proceeding is one where the vexatious litigant had little or no basis in law and its effect was to subject the opposing party to inconvenience. [6] As a vexatious litigant you ignored orders from the court. You were advised to obtain leave from the Federal Court before you pursue the matter further.”. [21] The Court of Appeal in Sim Kooi Soon (supra) further elaborated about the symptoms of a vexatious litigant- “[5] Sim Kooi Soon, you are a vexatious litigant. You keep on filing the same application one after another. You do not know when to stop. You exhibit the classic symptoms of a variant of de Clerambault's syndrome. It is a syndrome named after a French psychiatrist, Ga tan de Clerambault who described such syndrome as "litigious behaviour" (see Baruk H, "Les d lires passionels" in (1959) 1 Trait de Psychiatrie at pp. 532-540 reproduced in Themes and Variations in European Psychiatry [1974] (editors Hirsch S and Shepherd M)). According to the French psychiatrist Baruk H, patients "... who undertake a series of lawsuits, the first leading to others along with numerous pleas and hearings ... become threatening and insulting and often denounce magistrates, lodge repeated complaints and sometimes become dangerous." The writer further explained that de Clerambault's syndrome does not involve hallucinations. Sufferers, according to the writer, display a vehement and passionate attitude of filing unsustainable claims against others.”. Defendant’s Conduct [22] The Defendant has initiated seven (7) proceedings arising from and/or related to the very same subject matter against the Plaintiffs. It is undisputed that the Defendant has abused the legal process as a tool to embarrass, humiliate and insult the Plaintiffs with her frivolous and/or vexatious claims, which if unrestrained will continue to aggravate. [23] In Perak Industrial Corporation Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Tan Boon Lee [2015] 5 MLRH 261; [2015] MLJU 1970, it was held- “[27] In American Express (M) Sdn Bhd v. Matthias Chang Wen Chieh [2011] 3 MLRH 249, the court was asked to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant. In allowing the application, Prasad Sandosham Abraham J (as he then was) observed (at p 249): "In determining this question the court will have to look at the whole sequence of litigation initiated by the defendant to see whether the defendant fell within the barometers of the said Act bearing in mind, the order being sought is rather draconian in its effects and should be exercised sparingly (see Re Vernazza [1959] 2 All ER 200) particularly at p 202 of the report where it was held: "In determining whether proceedings were vexatious the court must look at the whole history of the matter, not solely at the question whether the pleadings had throughout disclosed a cause of action, and in the present case, so regarded, the order should be granted."" [28] The authorities illustrate that vexatious litigation concern repeated claims or applications in respect of one particular matter by which the litigant has become obsessed, commonly involving the same defendant or defendants. The real vice is the initiation or launching of proceedings that are ill founded and have no reasonable prospect of success. The court has a discretion under paragraph 17, whether to make an order upon the fulfilment of the statutory preconditions. The exercise of the discretion will depend on its assessment of where the interests of justice lie, taking into account on the one hand a citizen's right to initiate action in court and on the other the need to provide prospective defendants with a measure of protection against abusive and ill-founded claims. [29] An order under paragraph 17 does not act as a barrier to any future litigation but rather as a filter for unmeritorious cases. The effect of the order is simply to prevent a defendant from instituting or continuing proceedings without first obtaining the permission of the Court. If the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of the court's process and that there are reasonable grounds for those proceedings, the court will give the defendant permission to institute or continue them." [24] Based on the symptoms of a vexatious litigant, the Defendant’s history of conduct has fallen squarely within the definition of a ‘vexatious litigant’. Thus, this Court is guided by the decision of Sim Kooi Soon (supra) and the Plaintiff has succeeded to prove that the Defendant is a vexatious litigant and so declared. [25] For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the conduct of the Defendant in the Defendant’s Proceedings has shown that the Defendant had habitually and persistently and without reasonable cause instituted vexatious legal proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 17 of the Schedule under section 25(2) of the CJA, as can be seen from the history of the actions taken by the Defendant and as such, would justify the Defendant being declared as a vexatious litigant. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Enclosure 1 is allowed with cost. -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil NCVC1 Kuala Lumpur DATED: 21 SEPTEMBER 2024 PARTIES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Tetuan Zul Rafique & Partners Peguambela & Peguamcara D3-3-8, Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur THE DEFENDANT (REPRESENTING HERSELF) LIM JEN LIN @ LIM JEN LING [NRIC No.: 650418-01-5264]