Dr Munir Zaman v the University of Nottingham (WA-22NCvC-664-10/2024)

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM (Pendaftaran Syarikat Piagam Diraja: RC000664)

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM MALAYSIA (Kampus The University of Nottingham)

THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM IN MALAYSIA SDN BHD (Pendaftaran Syarikat: 199801017391 (473520-K))

4.

DR. HAIDER ABBAS F. ALMURIB ….. DEFENDANTS 03/07/2026 18:45:56 WA-22NCvC-664-10/2024 Kand. 89 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

The Defendants filed a Notice of Application in Enclosure 15 under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 and section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 to strike out the Plaintiff’s Amended Writ of Summons dated 4 December 2024 (Enclosure 4) and the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 17 February 2025 (Enclosure 13) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s cause of action against the Defendants is barred by limitation pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953.

The Plaintiff was previously employed by the 3rd Defendant. On 7 November 2014, the Plaintiff received a warning letter signed by the Dean and followed by a termination letter dated 17 December 2014 signed by the 4th Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleged that the warning letter and the termination letter were defamatory and the Defendants were negligent in issuing, investigating and republishing the said letters.

Therefore, on 12 December 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants and others vide Civil Suit No. WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020 (“Suit No. 828/2020”). The cause of action in Suit No. 828/2020 includes claims for defamation, negligence, contract and harassment.

On 10 June 2024, during the case management, the High Court granted the Plaintiff’s application to withdraw Suit No. 828/2020 with a liberty to file afresh although it was objected by the Defendants on the basis that the claims were time-barred.

Even though the Defendants’ appeal against the decision of the High Court in allowing the withdrawal of Suit No. 828/2020 vide Civil Appeal No. W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1167-07/2024 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 4 December 2025, the Court of Appeal, inter alia, held that the Defendants were not precluded from raising the issue of statutory time bar against the tortious claims in the event the Plaintiff files a fresh action against the Defendants before the High Court.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed a fresh action against the Defendants vide the Amended Writ of Summons dated 4 December 2024 and the Statement of Claim dated 17 February 2025.

The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff’s claims in tort of defamation and negligence in the present action are statute-barred pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 as the cause of action, which is based on the warning letter dated 7 November 2014 and the termination letter dated 17 December 2014, accrued in 2014 whilst the present action commenced in 2024.

The sole issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiff’s claims in defamation and negligence against the Defendants are barred by limitation under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953.

The principles governing striking out applications are well settled. In Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36; [1993] 1 MLRA 611, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to strike out ought to be exercised only in plain and obvious cases where the claim is clearly unsustainable.

In Honan Plantations Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor and Another Appeal [1998] 2 MLJ 498; [1998] 1 MLRA 262, the Court of Appeal held that the summary process of striking out should only be exercised where the Court can conclude that the plaintiff cannot succeed even if the pleaded facts are proved.

In Parkson Corp Sdn Bhd v Fazaruddin bin Ibrahim (t/a Perniagaan Fatama) and another appeal [2011] 2 MLJ 46, the Court of Appeal held that a time-barred claim may be struck out pursuant to Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. It was further held that pursuant to section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953, actions founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Having perused the cause papers, submissions and authorities by both parties, it is the finding of this Court that since the Plaintiff’s claim in defamation and negligence in the present Suit, which are tortious claims, is premised on the issuance of the warning letter dated 7 November 2014 and the termination letter dated 17 December 2014 by the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s action in instituting the present claim vide the Amended Writ of Summons dated 4 December 2024 and the Statement of Claim dated 17 February 2025 against the Defendants, is clearly barred by limitation under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953, as the present action is brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the right and cause of action accrued, that is on 17 December 2014.

Based on the above-mentioned reasons, this Court has allowed the Defendants’ application in Enclosure 15 with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocator fee. Dated : 30 JUNE 2026 (DR. ARIK SANUSI BIN YEOP JOHARI) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR (KUALA LUMPUR) The Plaintiff (self-represented): Dr Munir Zaman Suite 360, Lot KP0203B Alamanda 62000 PUTRAJAYA Tel: 017-971 9849 Ref: UoN-HC-10/2024 Email: ZamanLegal@protonmail.com Solicitors for the Defendants: Ms Haseena Elaine Kaur (together with Ms Lai Wai Fong) Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. Advocates and Solicitors 7th Floor, Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing, No. 1 Leboh Ampang 50100 KUALA LUMPUR Tel: 03-2027 2845/2746 Fax: 03-2034 2763 Ref: SD (DR) 4662375 (LWF) Email: waifong@sherndelamore.com haseena@sherndelamore.com