Karunakaran A/L Chatu v 1. ) Puvenenthiran A/L Gunnasekaran (WA-24NCvC-4419-11/2024)

In the matter of Clauses 5.13, 6.14, 10.1.6,

2.7, 16.2.7, 17.1.4 and 22 Olympic Council Malaysia Constitution And In the matter of Sections 50 and 51 of Specific Relief Act 1950 And In the matter of Order 7 Rule 7, Order 28, Order 29, Order 88 Rule 2 and Order 92 Rule 4 of Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN KARUNAKARAN A/L CHATU (NRIC NO.: 541215-03-5027) [suing as President of Taekwondo Negeri Selangor (WTF)] … PLAINTIFF 15/08/2025 15:21:58 WA-24NCvC-4419-11/2024 Kand. 53

PUVENENTHIRAN A/L GUNNASEKARAN (NRIC NO: 800117-10-5267) (sued as President of Galaxy Taekwondo Club)

AZIZUL ANNUAR DATUK PATINGGI TAN SRI ADENAN SATEM [sued as President of Taekwondo Malaysia (TM)]

TAN SRI DATO' SRI (DR.) MOHAMAD NORZA ZAKARIA (sued as President of Olympic Council Malaysia) … DEFENDANTS

The Court granted an ex parte injunction order on 15.11.2024 (see Encl. 10) for the following:

suatu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama sama ada oleh diri mereka sendiri atau melalui kakitangan atau ejen-ejen atau penama-penama atau sebaliknya dihalang melalui Injunksi daripada melaksanakan dan/atau memberi kesan kepada apa-apa resolusi yang diluluskan semasa EGM pada 17.11.2024 menurut Notis EGM bertarikh 15.10.2024 dan 2.11.2024 sementara pelupusan akhir Saman Pemula disini; dan

(ii) suatu perintah bahawa kedudukan pengarah dan/atau pemegang jawatan Taekwondo Negeri Selangor (TNS) di kekalkan sedia ada (status quo) sementara pelupusan akhir Saman Pemula.

The Court granted an extension of the ex parte order on 28.11.2024 (Encl. 15) as follows:

Perintah Injunksi ex-parte bertarikh 15.11.2024 terhadap Defendan Pertama dalam Kandungan 10 dilanjutkan sehingga pelupusan pendengaran injunksi inter partes di Kandungan 3; dan

(ii) tiada perintah mengenai kos. The Originating Summons (Encl. 1)

The Plaintiff is seeking for the following reliefs inter alia:

suatu perintah bahawa Defendan Pertama sama ada oleh diri mereka sendiri atau melalui kakitangan atau ejen-ejen atau penama-penama atau sebaliknya dihalang dari melaksanakan dan/atau memberi kesan kepada apa-apa resolusi yang diluluskan semasa EGM pada 17.11.2024

suatu perintah untuk mengarahkan Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga untuk memulakan prosiding mediasi berdasarkan rayuan/aduan Plaintiff bertarkh 7.3.2024

10.1.6, 15.2.7, 16.2.7, 17.1.4 dan 22 Perlembagaan Majlis Olimpik Malaysia dalam tempoh masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh perintah ini.

The cause papers filed in relation to the Originating Summons are as follows:

Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Karunakaran a/l Chatu filed on 12.11.2024 (Encl. 4) and Reply Affidavit of filed on 17.3.2025 (Encl. 40);

2nd Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply of Dhanaraj a/l Rassiah filed on 18.2.2025 (Encl. 36), 3rd Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply of Fong Wan Hor filed on 19. 2. 2025 (Encl. 37) and 2nd Defendant Reply Affidavit No. 2 of Dhanaraj a/l Rassiah (Encl. 41);

Plaintiff’s Written Submissions (Encl. 44) and Bundle of

2nd & 3rd Defendant’s Written Submissions (Encl. 47) and Bundle of Authorities (Encl. 48).

The Plaintiff (Karunakaran a/l Chatu) is the President of the Taekwondo Negeri Selangor (TNS), having been appointed in 2019 and serving to date. The Plaintiff filed action on behalf of TNS (suing as President of TNS).

TNS was established and registered as an association with the Commissioner of Sports Malaysia under Registration No.: 3791/2010 and in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Sports Development Regulations (Registration of Sports Bodies 1998) under the Sports Development Act 1997.

The 1st Defendant (Puvenenthiran a/l Gunnasekaran sued as the President of Galaxy Taekwondo Club). Galaxy Taekwondo Club does not hold any membership in TNS.

The 2nd Defendant (Azizul Annuar Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Adenan Satem) was sued as the President of Taekwondo Malaysia (TM). TM was established as the national governing body for the administration of WTF Taekwondo in Malaysia.

The 3rd Defendant (Tan Sri Dato’ Sri (Dr.) Mohamad Norza Zakaria) sued as the President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM). OCM is the National Olympic Committee representing Malaysia and is responsible for overseeing Malaysia's participation in international sporting events including taekwondo. OCM is governed by the Sports Development Act 1997 (Act 576).

The words “Clause” and “Article” are to be used interchangeably in reference to the respective Constitutions of Taekwondo Negeri Selangor (TNS), Taekwondo Malaysia (TM) and Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM).

TNS convened its Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the year 2018 on 5.5.2019, during which the Plaintiff was appointed as the President of TNS. At the said AGM, the accounts for the financial year 2017 could not be approved as the previous TNS committee had failed to submit a complete report. The accounts for the year 2017 were only approved subsequently at the AGM held on 9.1.2022. Due to the delay in the approval of the 2017 accounts, the accounts for the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 were only completed and approved at an Extraordinary General Meeting held on 17.4.2022.

On 27.1.2022, seven Taekwondo clubs in Selangor (the 7 Clubs), disgruntled by the accounts for the years 2017 to 2019, issued a Letter of Demand to TNS through their solicitors. Subsequently, on 21.2.2022, they filed Civil Suit No. BA- 22NCVC-74-02/2022 (Suit 74) in the Shah Alam High Court, seeking various reliefs against TNS, including a full audit report for 2017 to 2019. Suit 74 was struck out by the Shah Alam High Court on 30.6.2022 (Encl. 4 Exh. KC 9) on the ground that the Suit 74 was premature as the dispute had not been referred to mediation or arbitration first in accordance with the TNS Constitution. On 17.11.2022, TNS issued show cause notices to the 7 Clubs for initiating Suit 74 in breach of Clause 26 of the TNS Constitution.

On 5.12.2022, the TNS Executive Committee resolved to initiate disciplinary investigations against the 7 Clubs. The proceedings were conducted as scheduled on 4.1.2023, but neither the 7 Clubs nor their representatives attended. As a result, the disciplinary committee decided to terminate their membership with TNS for breaching Clauses 9.1 and 9.2 of the TNS Constitution.

By letter dated 30.1.2023 (Encl. 4 Exh. KC14), TNS informed the 7 Clubs of the findings of the disciplinary investigation and the Executive Committee's decision that they had breached TNS By- laws 9.1 and 9.2. Their membership was deemed automatically terminated.

By email email dated 7.2.2023, the 7 Clubs responded to TNS's letter dated 30.1.2023, disputing the disciplinary investigation procedure and the Executive Committee's decision. However, they did not file any appeal against the findings or the decision. Instead, they initiated mediation proceedings by referring the matter to the TM.

On 14.3.2023, TNS received a hearing notice from TM, informing that a hearing had been fixed on 23.3.2023 (Encl. 4 Exh. KC16) to resolve the dispute between the 7 Clubs and TNS. At the hearing on 23.3.2023, TM decided that TNS ought not to have terminated the membership of the 7 Clubs and directed that their memberships be reinstated within fourteen (14) days. In response, TNS requested an extension of time to deliberate TM's decision with the TNS Main Committee. Upon deliberation, TNS agreed to reinstate the 7 Clubs subject to conditions, that the 7 Clubs pay the sum of RM2,500.00 awarded as costs to TNS by the High Court in Suit 74, and that they shall not reopen any complaints pertaining to the 2017-2019 accounts, which had already been approved at the EGM.

On 16.6.2023, TNS was informed by TM that it could not impose conditions on the reinstatement of the 7 Clubs' memberships. In response, TNS via letter dated 4.7.2023 maintained that the three conditions imposed must remain. TM subsequently initiated charges against TNS and referred the matter to TM's Dispute and Disciplinary Committee for investigation into the conditions imposed by TNS on the 7 Clubs.

Following the hearing on 11.8.2023, TM informed TNS of its intention to revoke TNS's membership with TM due to, among other reasons, TNS's failure to comply with TM's directives. TNS was given 30 days to respond.

Subsequently, on 8.12.2023, TNS was called to attend a hearing session under Clause 9.2 of TM's Constitution regarding the revocation of TNS's membership with TM. The hearing was held on 15.12.2023 at TM's office. A day before the hearing, TNS informed TM that it was ready and had notified the 7 Clubs of their reinstatement as members of TNS without any conditions. (Encl. 4 Exh. KC 17)

Notwithstanding TNS's response, TM proceeded with the hearing on 15.12.2023 and subsequently revoked TNS's membership with TM on 8.1.2024. Despite this decision, TNS persisted and, through an EGM, passed a resolution to reinstate the 7 Clubs as members of TNS. This resolution was also communicated to TM.

On 26.1.2024, TNS appealed to TM, requesting reconsideration of its decision to revoke TNS's membership. Although TM did not issue an official letter, TNS was informed by third parties that TM rejected the appeal. However, to date, TM has made no effort to formally communicate its decision to TNS.

On 7.3.2024, 31.3.2024, and 10.5.2024, TNS submitted appeals and complaints to the OCM, outlining TNS's appeal/complaint against TM. These submissions were made in accordance with Clause 25 of TM's Constitution, which stipulates that any dispute between TM and its members must first be resolved amicably through mediation by the OCM, and, if mediation fails, the dispute may be referred to arbitration under the OCM. (Encl. 4 Exh. KC- 27 p. 295, p. 300 & p. 304)

OCM has failed to process TNS's appeal/complaint, and there has been no progress to date. On 5.8.2024, TNS, through its solicitor's letter dated 5.8.2024, made representations seeking TM's agreement to proceed with mediation, but TM did not respond. Despite the ongoing dispute over TNS's membership status, neither TM nor OCM has taken any initiative to mediate the issue.

The Plaintiff's primary objective in filing the Originating Summons is to compel the OCM to exercise its authority under the respective Constitutions of TNS, TM, and OCM to mediate the dispute through an independent mediator and to determine the status of TNS's membership.

The principles governing dispute resolution among sports associations and bodies are incorporated in Section 23 Sports Development Act 1997 (Act 576) whereby Section 23 mandates that every sports body must resolve any disputes arising among its members or between members and the committee or governing body in accordance with the internal procedures prescribed in the regulations. If a dispute cannot be resolved through the internal procedures, any member of a sports body or the sports body itself may refer the dispute to the Sports Dispute Committee for a decision as follows: “Section 23 Internal procedure for resolution of dispute Every sports body shall resolve any dispute arising amongst its members or with its committee or governing body in accordance with the internal procedures prescribed in the regulations. Referral of dispute to Sports Dispute Committee Section 24 Referral of dispute to Sports Dispute Committee Where a dispute cannot be resolved in accordance with the internal procedures referred to in section 23, any member of a sports body or a sports body itself may refer the dispute to the Sports Dispute Committee for decision.” Plaintiff’s Submissions (Encl. 44 and 49) TM’S inconsistent position

In seeking to defeat TNS's relief for mediation, TM contends that it has exclusive jurisdiction over matters pertaining to its membership. Clause 9 of TM's Constitution (Encl. 4 Exh. K2) provides that the Executive Board may, at any time and in its absolute discretion, withdraw the membership of any member and further states that any appeal against such decision may be lodged to the Council, and that the decision shall remain operative until it is set aside: “9.

9.1 The Executive Board may at any time in its absolute discretion withdraw the Membership of a Member for any of the following reasons:

Failure to comply with any provision of the Constitution or any other directives of the

Non-payment of fees due to TM after ninety

days of the suspension period;

Conduct which, in the opinion of the Council is (or would be) prejudicial and/or detrimental to TM.

9.2 A decision to withdraw the Membership of a Member shall be by majority vote at a meeting of the Executive Board provided always that before a decision is taken to withdraw Membership of a Member on the ground stated in paragraph (a) or

above the Member concerned shall be given thirty (30) days' notice in writing and an opportunity to be heard.

9.3 The order of withdrawal of Membership shall be signed by the Secretary General of TM and shall be effective from the date of the order. Any Member aggrieved by such order may in writing to the Secretary General within 30 days from the order, lodge an appeal to the Council. Notwithstanding such appeal, the order of withdrawal of Membership shall be operative until set aside.”

TM contends that, in matters relating to membership, neither OCM nor any other external party has jurisdiction, asserting that only TM has the exclusive authority to determine issues of membership.

The Plaintiff submits that TM's own conduct in intervening in the membership dispute involving the 7 Clubs and TNS clearly indicates that the issue of membership does not lie within the exclusive or absolute discretion of TM. The 7 Clubs lost their membership in TNS for commencing Suit 74 without first exhausting domestic remedies, and notably, did not appeal the TNS Executive Board's decision. Despite this, the clubs initiated a mediation process under TM. TM entertained the complaint and upon hearing the matter, ordered TNS to reinstate the 7 Clubs.

TM's decision to hear and act upon the complaint by the 7 Clubs demonstrates that membership-related decisions are not immune from oversight and mediation. TM is, by its own conduct, estopped from now asserting the contrary. Where a party, by its words or conduct, has represented or led the other party to believe that a certain interpretation of a contractual provision, is accepted and will be acted upon, it is estopped from subsequently resiling from that position to the detriment of the other party.

A party cannot approbate and reprobate; it cannot assert one position to induce reliance and later adopt a contradictory stance when it suits its convenience. The Court of Appeal in Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd v. Daewoo Corp [1999] 4 MLJ 545 at pp. 560 & 561 succinctly outlined the principle as laid down by Lord Denning MR in Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1981] 3 All ER 577 as follows: “If parties to a contract, by their course of dealing, put a particular interpretation on the terms of it, on the faith of which each of them to the knowledge of the other acts and conducts their mutual affairs, they are bound by that interpretation just as if they had written it down as being a variation of the contract. There is no need to inquire whether their particular interpretation is correct or not, or whether they were mistaken or not, or whether they had in mind the original terms or not. Suffice it that they have, by the course of dealing, put their own interpretation on their contract, and cannot be allowed to go back on it.”

Further, TM's current position, as set out in its affidavits, is also inconsistent with its own letter dated 28.8.2024 (Encl. 5 Exh. KC 36 p. 20) In the letter, TM expressly acknowledged that the issue of membership is subject to mediation. However, TM now contends that TNS ought to have commenced mediation while still holding membership, as Clause 25.1 of TM's Constitution is only available to existing members.

It is clear that TM's position on the issue of membership is inconsistent and irreconcilable as follows:

TM asserts that the question of membership lies exclusively within its discretion and cannot be challenged;

by its own conduct, particularly in intervening in the dispute involving the 7 Clubs and directing TNS to reinstate them. TM has acknowledged that membership decisions can indeed be challenged and subjected to mediation; and

TM vide letter dated 28.8.2024 contends that while challenges to revocation of membership are possible, such challenges must be initiated while the affected party remains a member, not after revocation.

TNS also submits that there is an apparent bias displayed by OCM in handling the issue of TNS's membership in TM as follows:

despite multiple letters and formal complaint forms submitted by TNS to OCM on 7.3.2024, 31.3.2024 and

10.5.2024, OCM has, to date, failed to process or act upon any of these complaints. There has been no substantive response or progress on the matter;

it is further pertinent to note that OCM has appointed the same firm of solicitors as TM, namely Messrs N. Suseela Devi. As evidenced from the letter dated 19.2.2025 issued by the said firm (Encl. 40 Exh. 39), Dato' Sri Padmaraja, who presently holds the position of Deputy President of TM, also acts as legal counsel for OCM;

this dual role gives rise to a clear and apparent conflict of interest, which calls into question OCM's impartiality and its ability to act independently in mediating the dispute. Such circumstances are wholly incompatible with OCM's obligations as a national sporting body entrusted with overseeing the integrity of its member associations;

this also constitutes a breach of Article 5.10 of the OCM Constitution, which expressly mandates the preservation of full autonomy and independence in all its affairs. The surrounding circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias and compromise the legitimacy of any mediation process conducted under OCM's purview;

further compounding this concern is the fact that the legal fees of Messrs N. Suseela Devi, acting for OCM, are being borne by TM. This financial arrangement raises serious issues of procedural fairness, transparency, and institutional independence;

for avoidance of doubt, the legal bills from Messrs N. Suseela Devi dated 6.2.2025 Encl. 40 Exh KC-40 pp 23 and 24 are not privileged documents. In Ernest Cheong Yong Yin v. Kamariyah Hamdan & Ors [2015] 3 MLJ 40, the court confirmed that invoices for legal fees are not confidential or protected under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950, as they do not contain legal advice or private communication between lawyer and client;

it is further noted that Dato' Sri Padmaraja had also sat as a panel member representing TM in the earlier dispute involving TNS and the 7 Clubs. The conflict of interest is manifest and egregious. (see Meeting Minutes at Encl. 40 Exh KC-17 at p 234);

As the body responsible for safeguarding ethical standards in sport, OCM was duty-bound to preserve institutional integrity and ensure equal treatment of all parties. Its failure to do so, coupled with the acceptance of legal representation funded by one of the disputing parties, is incompatible with the principles of natural justice and constitutes a breach of Article 5.10 of the OCM Constitution.

In Darshan Singh v. Farid Karnal Hussain [2005] 3 MLJ 502 the Court of Appeal held that where a person who had given evidence in disciplinary proceedings later participated in the appellate tribunal, such conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the tribunal's decision was thereby vitiated. The Court reaffirmed that it is not necessary to prove actual bias; it is sufficient if there exists a real likelihood of bias, or where justice is not seen to be done.

The Court further held that participation by a person who had a prior role in the investigation or decision-making process contravenes the rule against bias. Similarly, the presence of Dato’ Sri Padmaraja in multiple roles, as Deputy President of TM, legal advisor to both OCM and TM, and a member of the panel adjudicating disputes involving TNS mirrors this conflict and violates the principle of natural justice.

The Court in Darshan Singh (supra) further held that natural justice is violated even if there is only a risk of prejudice, and not necessarily actual prejudice. The mere fact that TM is funding the legal fees of OCM’s solicitors, who are acting simultaneously for TM and OCM, offends this principle. The surrounding facts create a legitimate and reasonable apprehension that OCM cannot act fairly or impartially.

In the circumstances, and for the reasons stated above, TNS submits that the mediation sought ought to be conducted by an independent mediator appointed through the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA), in accordance with Article 22.2 of the OCM Constitution. 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Submissions (Encl. 42 and Encl. 47)

TNS was given the opportunity to be heard before the TM Executive Board TM and participated in the withdrawal of membership proceeding.

Article 9.3 of the Constitution & Bye-Law (Taekwondo Malaysia) (WTF) (Encl. 4 p. 61) reads as follows: “9.3 The order of withdrawal of Membership shall be signed by the Secretary General of TM and shall be effective from the date of the order. Any member aggrieved by such order may be in writing to the Secretary General within 30 days from the order, lodge an appeal to the Council. Notwithstanding such appeal, the order of withdrawal of Membership shall be operative until set aside.”

The issue in respect of the TNS membership being withdrawn on 8.1.2024 is stipulated in the TM Constitution (Encl. 4 p. 59) where Article 6.3 reads as follows: “PART VI MEMBERSHIP The Council may accept or reject any applications for membership. If the application is rejected, a reasonable ground must be given to the applicant’.

The powers of the Council is reflected in Article 15.3 (Encl. 4 p. 61) as follows: “PART VIII POWERS OF COUNCIL To hear appeals from an aggrieved Member or person from a decision given by the Executive Board, Committees, Sub Committees or other bodies of TM. The decision of the Council shall be binding upon all parties.”

TNS had undertaken all available internal remedies, process dan procedures following Article 9.2 dan 9.3 TM Constitution whereby TNS participated and was agreeable to be bound by the final decision of TM Council. Pursuant to this, TNS has no locus to invoke Article 22.1 of the OCM Constitution (Encl. 4 p. 337) as the issue of membership of TM is not a dispute to be considered for a mediation.

TNS is currently in the mediation with the Sports Commissioner Office in a letter dated 10.2.2025 (Encl. 36. Exh. DR 1 p. 15) pertaining to the “sesi perbincangan hala tuju Badan Sukan” and therefore this is an abuse of the process of Court in respect of relief 4 in the Originating Summons.

In the case of Dato’Sri Mohd. Alias Bin Abdul Rahman & Anor. v. Datuk Haji Yusoff Bin Haji Mohamed [2016] MLJU 1035, the Court decided as follows: “Courts have been generally reluctant to interfere with the affairs of private clubs or associations. Lord Denning in Lee v The Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] QB 329 said famously that the “courts have no wish on appeal from their decisions anymore than from decisions of a family conference”. However, clubs and private associations are not exempted from following the rules of natural justice. As Lord Denning stated in the above-mentioned case, a man must be given a notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

The Defendant submits that paragraph 9 of Encl. 40 (Exh. KC-39 and 40) when exhibiting the legal bills are internal issues of the legal firm regarding matters of the clients and are scandalous in nature. Order 41 rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 refer to scandalous matter in affidavits as follows: “The Court may order to be struck out of any affidavit any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive.”

It is trite that domestic remedies to be exhausted first. The Federal Court in the case of Datuk Pasamanickam & Anor v. Agnes Joseph [1980] 2 MLJ 92 at p. 96 decided as follows: “There are provisions in the rules of powerful organisations such as the trade unions and political organisations forbidding their members as far as they can lawfully do, from submitting their disputes to the decision of the courts unless and until certain conditions precedent are observed, for example until certain matters have been resolved by their domestic forums, upon which they themselves agree.”

The Court of Appeal in Tharmalingam v. Sambanthan [1961] MLJ 63 held that it was a condition precedent for the appellant should resort to the domestic remedies provided before resorting to the Court.

It is trite law that members of a sports bodies are bound by its rules. Where the rules provide that disputes between any member and the body or its office-bearers are to be resolved by reference to a domestic forum within the body's own framework, no external tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes in the first instance. A provision of this nature operates to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in respect of any dispute between a member and the body or its office-bearers.

The Constitutions of TM and OCM provide a dispute resolution process for any dispute between a member of TM/OCM which shall be resolved amicably through Alternate Dispute Resolution namely mediation at OCM. Pursuant to the powers conferred under Article 25.1 of TM's Constitution and Article 22.1 of OCM's Constitution it is clear that the dispute between TM and TNS concerning TNS's membership is to be resolved through mediation by OCM or by referring the matter to the KLRCA, now known as the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) for mediation in accordance with the KLRCA Mediation and Conciliation Rules (now known as AIAC Mediation Rules 2023) and that the revocation of its membership by TM remains a live dispute that must first be resolved through mediation. The relevant provisions of the respective Constitution of TM and OCM are as follows:

26.1 Any dispute between a Member and TM, or with another Member of TM or between a Member of TM and any of its Members (state or club or individual), shall be resolved amicably in the first instance through the process of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), namely, mediation at the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM) and if amicably resolved at this stage, the matter shall be fully settled with no further recourse.

26.2 Only if mediation fails, then with the consent of the parties concerned, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration at the OCM and an arbitrator(s) is appointed by mutual consent. OCM’s Constitution (Encl. 4 KC 28)

22.1 Any dispute between a Member and OCM, or with another Member of OCM or between a Member of OCM and any of its member (state or club or individual), shall be resolved amicably in the first instance through the process of ADR, namely, mediation and if amicably resolved at this stage, the matter shall be deemed fully settled with no further recourse.

22.2 If any member wishes mediation to be carried out by OCM, OCM shall provide the necessary services of mediation. Alternatively, the mediation may be referred to the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA) for a mediation process under the KLRCA Mediation and Conciliation Rules. Mediation shall be carried out by the process of appointing a mediator(s) by the parties concerned from the panel members as appointed by the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA). Before commencement of mediation, the mediator(s) shall be agreed to by both the parties concerned. The mediator's role is that he acts independently and facilitates the mediation process. The procedure to be decided by the mediator and agreed to by the parties concerned. If the mediation is successful, the parties shall sign an agreement agreeing to the amicable settlement of the dispute and such agreement shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the parties.

22.3 If, however, mediation fails then the unresolved dispute shall be referred either to the Minister of Youth and Sports where his decision shall be final in accordance with Section 24 of the Sports Development Act 1997 or to arbitration where the parties to the dispute shall agree and consent to abide by the KLRCA Sports Arbitration Rules. The governing Rules shall be made known to the parties concerned prior to the appointment of the arbitrator(s). The role of the arbitrator(s) is to arbitrate the dispute. He acts independently and adopts an acceptable procedure as agreed to by the parties or as provided by the rules. The arbitrator(s) shall at the conclusion of the arbitration process, make an Award which shall be binding on the parties concerned. The Award shall be binding on the parties unless challenged in which case Article 22.5 shall apply.

22.4 The process of mediation and arbitration is an alternate means of resolving a dispute amicably pursuant to the Constitution and By-Laws of OCM. Dispute between TNS and TM

The dispute between TNS and TM pertaining to the withdrawal of TNS’s membership can be gleaned from the letter from the President of TNS to OCM dated 26.1.2024 (Encl. 4 p. 288) as follows: “RE: DISPUTE BETWEEN TAEKWONDO NEGERI SELANGOR (TNS) AND TAEKWONDO MALAYSIA Withdrawal of TNS Membership With regret we wish to inform that TM via its Executive Committee on 8.1.2024 had ordered the withdrawal of TNS’s membership as its member. The order was issued after TM found that TNS had failed to adhere to the Dispute Committee’s decision made during the hearing on 15.12.2023. Not satisfied with the decision, in accordance with Clause 9.3 of the TM’s Cconstitution, TNS had appealed on 26.1.2024 to the General Council and the appeal is still pending. The order prevents TNS and its member participating in all activities conducted by TM including the AGM by TM which has been fixed on 3 February 2024. Upon receiving the decision of the appeal by the General Council of TM and if the decision is not in favour to TNS, TNS intends to refer this dispute to OCM for mediation and thereafter for arbitration also by OCM.”

By the letter dated 29.1.2024 (Encl. 4 p. 291) from the Secretary General of TM to the President of TNS on the “Appeal against the Withdrawal Order of TNS Membership with TM” whereby the relevant part of the letter reads as follows: “Firstly, we comprehend that the appeal should be directed to the Secretary General of Taekwondo Malaysia, rather than the Council as per article 9.3 of TM Constitution. The delay on the part of TNS to align with TM’s directives coupled with non-compliance with TM and TNS bye-laws, led to the action taken by TM against TNS.” Applicability of the rules of natural justice

The Court of Appeal case of Darshan Singh v. Farid Kamal Hussain (sued on behalf and for the Board of Members and Kelab Sukan Pulau Pinang) [2005] 3 MLJ 502 at p. 510 decided as to what extent is the court likely to intervene in matters involving domestic tribunal of a social club as follows: “It is not in dispute that the rules of natural justice does apply to a club like the respondent, therefore, members of the club could not arbitrarily be expelled or suspended without first being given a hearing, for their contracts of membership are held to include a duty to act fairly; by accepting them as members and receiving their subscription the club impliedly undertakes to treat them justly and in accordance with rules.” The crux of this OS

By the Originating Summons filed herein, TNS seeks an order to compel OCM to mediate the dispute between TNS and TM through an independent mediator appointed by the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA), now known as the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) as provided for under Dispute Resolution Clauses in TM’s Constitution read together with OCM’s Constitution. Absence of official reply by TM

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants submissions that the Plaintiff was not prejudiced in the absence of any official letter by TM to TNS pertaining to outcome of the appeal is devoid of any merits. The absence of TM official reply is fortified in the paras. 40 and 41 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Support (Encl. 4) filed in support of the Application for Ex-Parte Injunction and Originating Summons on 12.11.2024 as follows: “40. Walaupun TM tidak mengeluarkan notis rasmi, pihak TNS telah dimaklumkan oleh pihak ketiga bahawa rayuan TNS terhadap keputusan TM untuk menarikbalik keahlian TNS telah ditolak oleh TM.

Melalui surat-surat dan borang aduan TNS bertarikh 7.3.2024 (m.s. 295) 31.3.2024 (m.s. 300) dan 10.5.2024 (m.s. 304 & 305) pihak TNS telah mengemukakan rayuan/aduan kepada Majlis Olimpik Malaysia dan Pesuruhjaya Sukan Malaysia yang memperincikan butir-butiran rayuan/aduan TNS terhadap TM. Ini adalah selaras dengan Klausa 25 Perlembagaan TM yang menyatakan bahawa mana-mana pertikaian di antara TM dan ahli TM perlu diputuskan secara baik melalui mediasi oleh Majlis Olimpik Malaysia dan jika mediasi gagal, pertikaian tersebut perlu dirujuk kepada timbang tara di Majlis

By letter dated 19.7.2025 (Encl. 41 p. 15) from CK Taekwondo Club to Taekwondo Malaysia (WT) the relevant portion reads as follows: “2. It was unfortunate that Taekwondo Negeri Selangor as the founding member of Taekwondo Malaysia (WT) has been suspended from being its member. The dispute is now pending arbitration and remains live.”

TM Council as the appellate body under TM Constitution did not communicate any decision in respect of the TNS appeal against the Executive Board’s decision to revoke its membership. The events that transpired pursuant to the absence of any official reply to TNS appeal on the decision to withdraw its membership from TM is without a doubt a breach of natural justice.

The Court is therefore inclined to agree with the Plaintiff’s submissions that the production of draft minutes at this late stage is wholly inadequate and constitutes a serious breach of the duty of fairness, transparency, and natural justice. It undermines the integrity of TM's decision-making process and offends the rule of law.

Consequently, under Article 25.1 of the TM Constitution where any dispute between a Member and TM, or with another Member of TM or between a Member of TM and any of its Members (state or club or individual), shall be resolved amicably in the first instance through the process of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), namely, mediation at the Olympic Council of Malaysia (OCM) and if amicably resolved at this stage, the matter shall be fully settled with no further recourse. Needless to say, the dispute over membership is amenable to mediation in accordance with TM's Constitution. OCM has the powers to mediate

At the outset, it is important to note that the OCM has adopted a position that is aligned with that of TM. OCM contends that it has no authority to mediate the dispute between TM and its member, TNS. According to OCM, its powers under its Constitution do not extend to intervening in or facilitating mediation concerning disputes between a national sports association and its affiliates.

Further, Articles 5.13 and 6.14 of the OCM Constitution, which appear under the headings Objects and Powers respectively, confirm that OCM possesses oversight authority in respect of “its own members” TM, as a member of OCM, and TNS, as a member of TM, clearly fall within this category.

These provisions reinforced that OCM does have a legitimate role in facilitating dispute resolution within the Malaysian sporting framework. As such, OCM's assertion that it lacks authority to mediate the present dispute is inconsistent with the plain wording and spirit of its own Constitution (Encl. 4 pp 323 & 324) as follows: “5.13 to do all things necessary with regard to settling a dispute or disputes as between a member and the OCM, or as between a member and another member, or as between a member and its members.

6.14 to settle any dispute that may arise between a member and another member of OCM and between a member of OCM and its own members.”

For ease of reference pertaining to the Draft Minutes of Taekwondo Malaysia (WT) 18th Council Meeting on 4.5.2025, the relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting (Encl. 41 p. 14) reads as follows: “3.10 TNS APPEAL AGAINST THE WITHDRAWAL ORDER OF TNS MEMBERSHIP WITH TM TNS had appeal against the withdrawal order of TNS membership with TM on 26 January 2024. The Council to decide on the appeal. The President has requested to deliberate on the appeal and shows of hands for voting purpose on whether to accept or reject the appeal. After thorough deliberation on the TNS appeal letter, findings of the hearing committee and decision of the EB (Executive Board), the Council decided to uphold the decision of the Executive Board and rejected the appeal by TNS.”

The issue of TNS acceptance or withdrawal of TM membership is not a dispute in respect of the mediation in OCM. The issue of whether TNS is accepted as a TM Member or not is therefore within the jurisdiction or purview of TM under the TM Constitution (Article 6 & 9) and not OCM.

Article 10.1.6 of the OCM Constitution (Encl. 4 p. 328) reads as follows: “A Member of the OCM shall exhaust all available internal processes and procedures pursuant to the Articles and By-laws of the Constitution of OCM, with regards to any dispute or complaint or grievance before resorting to any other ramification.”

Article 22.6 of the OCM Constitution (Encl. 4 p. 338) reads as follows: “All national bodies shall first exhaust all available internal remedies if possible, pursuant to the Article/Clause of its own Constitution including disciplinary action before the commencement of the mediation or arbitration process.” No final decision by TM’s council.

The affidavit evidence (Encl. 41 para. 4) by TM disclosed that the TM Council, the appellate body designated under TM's Constitution, did not render or communicate any decision in respect of TNS's appeal against the Executive Board's decision to revoke its membership.

It was only upon the initiation of the present proceedings that TM annexed a purported draft of the Minutes of Meeting (Encl. 41 p. 14), suggesting, for the first time, that a decision had in fact been made. TM has further conceded that the said decision was not communicated to TNS, attributing the omission to a lapse in memory.

Such an explanation is wholly unsatisfactory and undermines the integrity of the internal decision-making process that there exists a common law duty to provide reasons for administrative decisions, particularly where such decisions affect public rights or confer adverse consequences.

I am of the considered view that the failure to communicate the outcome of an appeal, which directly affects the rights and status of a member, constitutes a fundamental breach of the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Federal Court in Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur v. Perbadanan Pengurusan Trellises & Ors [2023] 3 MLJ 829 at paras 501 and 532 affirmed this principle, holding that even in the absence of a statutory obligation, public authorities must give reasons contemporaneously with the decision, to safeguard transparency and the right to meaningful challenge. The Court held that the failure to provide reasons at the time of the decision and instead seeking to justify the same through affidavits filed in subsequent judicial review proceedings undermines the principle of procedural fairness. This duty ensures that decision-makers remain accountable and operate within the boundaries of legality and the rule of law: “...Although no statutory provision required the DB to give reasons for granting the DO, the duty to give reasons at the time the decision was made arose from the fact that the grant of the DO deviated from the statutory development plans under the FT Act. The statutorily given rights of the public would be diluted and rendered, nugatory if the DB could override the statutory development plans and give no reasons for the deviation..." (para 501) “The giving of reasons was also of considerable importance from the point of view of transparency and objectivity and to allow persons 'adversely affected' to effectively challenge the DB's decision in court. Ultimately, the Rule of Law required that statutory bodies should act within the confines of their legislated authority and not ultra vires.” (para 532) “Such reasons are to be given at the time when a decision is made and is communicated to the objectors, rather than in an affidavit filed when a court challenge has been brought....”

Applying the above principles to the present case, TM, in its capacity as the governing body for national taekwondo, was under a duty to promptly hear and determine TNS's appeal against the Executive Board's revocation decision, and to provide reasons contemporaneously with that determination. Instead, TM failed to deliver or communicate any decision on the appeal and only after the commencement of these proceedings did TM produced the said Draft Minutes of the Council Meeting. TNS application for Mediation (Dispute Resolution)

The decision-making power with regards membership is not unfettered that requires the observance of fair procedure, compliance of principles of natural justice and adherence to rules governing the sports body like TNS, TM & OCM.

The statutory dispute resolution framework are set out in the Sports Development (Internal Procedures for Resolving Disputes Within Sports Body) Regulations 2022 made pursuant to section 38 (2) (d) of the Sports Development Act 1977 (Act 576) which is consistent with TNS application for mediation under the purview of OCM. Other issues

The Plaintiff’s contention was that OCM has appointed the same firm of solicitors as TM, namely Messrs N. Suseela Devi as evidenced from the letter dated 19.2.2025 (Encl. 40 Exh. 39) issued by the said firm and that Dato' Sri Padmaraja, who presently holds the position of Deputy President of TM, also acts as legal counsel for OCM. The conflict of interest is therefore in my considered view manifest and egregious. Position of 1st Defendant

The 1st Defendant has elected not to participate in this proceedings despite having full knowledge of the same. An injunction has been granted against the 1st Defendant vide Encl. 10 (Ex-Parte) and Encl. 25 (Inter-partes), and all cause papers have been duly served via substituted service pursuant to the Order dated 3.1.2025 (Encl. 24).

TNS's complaint against the 1st Defendant is with regards the 1st Defendant's EGM Notices dated 15.10.2024 and 2.11.2024 [Encl. 4 Exh KC-30] issued to TNS and/or its members and the 1st Defendant purported to convene an EGM on 17.11.2024 under Clause 19 of the TNS Constitution for the purpose of deciding matters arising from TM's withdrawal of TNS' membership.

I am of the considered view that the EGM convened on 17.11.2024 was unconstitutional, procedurally improper, and in contravention of Clause 19.2 of the TNS Constitution. (Encl. p. 35).

The actions of the 1st Defendant in unilaterally issuing EGM notices and attempting to bypass the Executive Board clearly constituted a breach of the Constitution and therefore deemed null and void. “Clause 19.2 of the TNS Constitution.

EXTRA-ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING All Extra-Ordinary General Meetings shall be convened:

19.1 Whenever the President or the Executive Board deems it desirable.

19.2 On a signed requisition from not less than fifty percent (50%) of the members of the Association, the Executive Board shall convene an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such requisition or notice.

19.3 Twenty-one (21) days' notice of such Extra-Ordinary General Meeting together with the business to be transacted shall be given to all members by the Secretary General.

19.4 The provisions with regard to matters of voting, quorum, and the postponement of the General Meeting shall apply in the same manner to an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting but with the proviso that if no quorum is present after half an hour from the scheduled time for a postponed Extra-Ordinary General Meeting requisitioned by members, the meeting shall be cancelled, and no Extra-Ordinary General Meeting shall be requisitioned for the same purpose until after the lapse of at least six (6) months from the date hereof.

19.5 The Secretary General shall forward to all members a copy of the draft minutes of each General Meeting within fourteen (14) days after its conclusion.” Summary of Court’s analysis

The Plaintiff has established their case on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the Court makes the following orders:

the 1st Defendant conduct of the EGM convened on 17.11.2024 was unconstitutional, procedurally improper and in direct contravention of the TNS Constitution; and

an order be made against the 2nd and 3rd Defendant to compel OCM to mediate the dispute between TNS and TM through an independent mediator appointed by KLRCA now known as Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) pursuant to the dispute resolution clauses in the TM’s Constitution read together with the OCM’s Constitution within 30 days from date of this Order.

Based on the reasons adumbrated above, the Plaintiff’s Application for the Relief in paragraphs 1 and 4 are hereby allowed with costs of RM10,000.00 (subject to allocatur) against the 1st Defendant and RM10,000.00 (subject to allocatur) as agreed costs against the 2nd and 3rd Defendant. Dated: 7 August 2025 sgd ………………………………………….. (EDDIE YEO SOON CHYE) Judge Commissioner High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Counsel for the Plaintiff: Shaarvin Raaj & Shreeya Vahini Venukumar (PIC) Messrs. Kumar Partnership Kuala Lumpur. 1st Defendant: Puvenenthiran a/l Gunnasekaran (absent/unrepresented) (No. K/P: 800117-10-5267) (disaman sebagai Presiden Galaxy Taekwondo Club), Counsel for the 2nd Puthan Perumal & 3rd Defendants: Messrs. N. Suseela Devi & Co. Kuala Lumpur.