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 01/07/2026 12:24:07 WA-22NCvC-664-10/2024 Kand. 88

The Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 8 is to seek leave to serve the Notice of Writ out of jurisdiction on the 1st and 4th Defendants, as per Enclosure 6 and Enclosure 7 respectively, pursuant to Order 11 rule 1 and rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, for the following reasons –

on 10 June 2024, the High Court (Civil Suit No. WA- 22NCvC-828-12/2020), granted the Plaintiff the liberty to refile afresh the cause of action, wherein leave was granted in that Suit, to serve the Notice of Writ out of jurisdiction to the 1st and 4th Defendants;

that the action begun by the Writ is founded on a tort committed within the jurisdiction, which is one of the principally cases where service of a Notice of Writ out of jurisdiction is permissible (with leave of the Court), pursuant to Order 11 rule 1(1)(H) of the Rules of Court 2012;

the cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya, and as such this Court is the most convenient forum, and has jurisdiction to try the civil action under the provisions of the Defamation Act 1957, pursuant to section 23(1)(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964;

the Plaintiff verily believes the Plaintiff has a good cause of action against the Defendants under the provisions of the

the last known addresses of the 1st and 4th Defendants are outside of the jurisdiction and the Notice of Writ can only be served by way of service out of jurisdiction; and

that leave is required before the Notice of Writ can be served on the 1st and 4th Defendants outside of the jurisdiction.

The 1st and 4th Defendants had opposed to the Plaintiff’s application mainly on these three grounds –

that the 1st and 4th Defendants together with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had filed the Memorandum of Appearance on 4 February 2025 (Enclosure 10) and the first date for case management of the present Suit was fixed on 5

that Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. had appeared and acted for the 1st and 4th Defendants during the first case management of the present Suit and also in the subsequent proceedings; and

that pursuant to the Court’s direction given on 11 March 2025, the 1st and 4th Defendants had affirmed an affidavit on 27 March 2025 (Enclosure 25) to confirm that Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. was appointed to represent and act for the 1st and 4th Defendants in the present Suit.

Having considered all the cause papers and submissions by both parties, this Court had dismissed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 8 based on the following reasons.

Firstly, it was evident from the cause papers that the 1st and 4th Defendants together with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had appointed Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. to represent and act for them in the present Suit and hence, Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. had –

filed the Defendants’ Memorandum of Appearance on 4

appeared and acted for the 1st and 4th Defendants during the first case management on 5 February 2025 and also in the subsequent proceedings;

filed the Defendants’ Defence on 5 March 2025 (Enclosure 19); and

informed the Court during the first case management and in the subsequent proceedings that they were representing the 1st and 4th Defendants together with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

In this respect, the law is trite that when a counsel appears before a Court and informs the Court that he or she is representing a particular litigant in a particular suit, the Court will accept the counsel’s authority to act for the litigant and will not inquire into his or her authority to appear.

The principle is well established in the case of Scott & English (M) Sdn Bhd v Yek Toh Ming [1985] 1 MLJ 451; [1984] 1 MLRH 560, where Chong Siew Fai J (as he then was) held that – “… In Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition Vol. 3 paragraph 1179, the following passage appears: “When counsel appears in court and states that he is instructed, the Court will not inquire into his authority to appear, …” In any event, if the learned President had any doubt as to the authority or instructions of Mr. Teng to appear, he should have taken such action as inquiring into the matter or suspending the proceedings until he was satisfied of the position of Mr. Teng. If such a course was taken, the position or authority of Mr. Teng would have been clear.”. [Penekanan ditambah]

Secondly, this Court is satisfied that based on the Court’s direction given on 11 March 2025, the 1st and 4th Defendants had affirmed an affidavit dated 27 March 2025 (Enclosure 25) to confirm that Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. was appointed to represent and act for all the Defendants in the present Suit.

From the evidence, it is crystal clear that the 1st and 4th Defendants were aware about the Plaintiffs’ Writ of Summons and therefore, had appointed Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. to represent and act for them and to enter the Defendants’ appearance. For the record, Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. is the same firm that had represented and acted for all the Defendants in the previous Suit No. WA-22NCvC-828-12/2020.

Since the 1st and 4th Defendants had already entered their appearance and appointed Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. to act for them, it is the view of this Court that there is no longer a need for the Plaintiff to seek leave to serve the Notice of Writ outside of jurisdiction, as it does not serve any purpose.

For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 8 with costs of RM3,000.00 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