Tan Sri Dato' Kam Woon Wah v Dato' Sri Andrew Kam Tai Yeow (WA-22NCvC-822-12/2021)

DATO’ SRI ANDREW KAM TAI YEOW

HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI (NRIC NO: 911130-14-5118) ... DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Before this Court is the Plaintiff's application at Enclosure 230, brought pursuant to Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"), seeking the determination of three Questions of Law prior to the trial of the present action. 29/07/2026 17:12:38

The application is premised upon the Plaintiff's contention that the proposed Questions concern pure questions of law arising from previous proceedings between the parties and are capable of determination without the necessity of a full trial.

The three proposed Questions principally concern:

whether the Defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or whether it would amount to an abuse of process for the Defendants to commence any future proceedings against the Plaintiff under the Mental

whether paragraph 4 of the Defence is legally sustainable; and

whether paragraph 6 of the Defence is legally sustainable.

Those are the same Questions of Law advanced by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 230 and in the Plaintiff's written submissions.

The Defendants oppose the application. Their principal contention is that the proposed Questions do not satisfy the requirements of Order 14A because they involve issues which remain intertwined with the substantive dispute in the main action and cannot properly be determined separately before trial.

After considering the Notice of Application, the affidavits filed by the parties, the pleadings, the written and oral submissions of learned counsel together with the authorities relied upon, this Court dismissed Enclosure 230 with costs in the cause.

The Plaintiff has now appealed against that decision.

These are the Grounds of Judgment.

Although the Plaintiff has formulated three separate Questions of Law, this Court considered that the application ultimately raised one fundamental procedural issue.

The question was not whether the Plaintiff's arguments on res judicata, issue estoppel or abuse of process would ultimately succeed.

Neither was this Court required, at this interlocutory stage, to determine whether the Defendants' pleaded defences would ultimately fail at the trial.

Rather, the threshold question before this Court was whether the proposed Questions were suitable for determination under Order 14A of the ROC 2012.

It was therefore necessary to determine whether the proposed Questions could properly be decided as stand-alone questions of law or whether they substantially overlapped with the issues which the trial Court would ultimately be required to determine in the main action.

It is that question which formed the focus of this Court's determination.

Accordingly, the Court's task was not to determine the correctness of the Plaintiff's substantive legal arguments. Rather, the Court was required to determine whether those arguments were suitable for determination by way of Order 14A before the action proceeds to trial.

The present action did not arise in isolation. It forms part of a series of proceedings between the parties concerning the Plaintiff's mental capacity and the legal consequences said to arise from those proceedings.

The earlier proceedings commenced in 2021 when proceedings were instituted under the Mental Health Act 2001 in respect of the Plaintiff. Those proceedings were contested by the Plaintiff and ultimately became the subject of further appellate proceedings.

Following the determination of the Mental Health proceedings at first instance, an appeal was pursued to the Court of Appeal. During the course of those proceedings, issues arose concerning the parties' respective rights to commence or continue further proceedings relating to the Plaintiff's mental capacity.

As part of the appellate proceedings, the Court of Appeal granted an interim anti-suit injunction pending the disposal of the appeal. The interim injunction was intended to preserve the existing position while the appeal remained before the appellate court. It was not a final determination of the substantive rights now asserted by the parties in the present action.

Following the conclusion of those earlier proceedings, the Plaintiff commenced the present suit. The Plaintiff's case is founded substantially upon the legal consequences which, according to the Plaintiff, flow from the previous High Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

In particular, the Plaintiff contends that those earlier decisions operate, among other things, to preclude the Defendants from pursuing further proceedings under the Mental Health Act 2001 and to render certain positions pleaded in the Defence legally unsustainable.

The Defendants dispute those contentions. By their Defence, they deny that the previous proceedings produce the legal consequences alleged by the Plaintiff and maintain that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the declaratory and consequential reliefs sought.

It is therefore apparent from the pleadings that the legal effect of the previous proceedings lies at the heart of the present action and forms a substantial component of the issues which remain to be determined at trial.

Prior to the commencement of the trial, the Plaintiff filed Enclosure 230 pursuant to Order 14A of the ROC 2012.

By this application, the Plaintiff invited the Court to determine, in advance of the trial, the three Questions of Law referred to earlier.

The Plaintiff contended that those Questions were pure questions of law capable of determination without oral evidence and that their determination would materially advance the disposal of the present action.

The Defendants, on the other hand, contended that the application failed to satisfy the requirements of Order 14A.

They submitted, amongst others, that the proposed Questions involved genuine issues arising from the pleadings, that they would not finally determine the action or any substantial issue therein, and that they were therefore unsuitable for determination under Order 14A.

It was against this procedural background that the Court was called upon to determine whether the proposed Questions should properly be answered at this interlocutory stage.

The Plaintiff submits that the proposed Questions of Law concern pure questions of law which are capable of determination without the necessity of a full trial.

The Plaintiff's principal contention is that the previous decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the Mental Health proceedings have conclusively determined the legal consequences arising from those proceedings.

According to the Plaintiff, those earlier decisions have rendered the relevant facts no longer disputable and consequently the Defendants are precluded from advancing the positions pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Defence.

It is further submitted that the proposed Questions concern the legal sustainability of the Defendants' pleaded defences rather than disputed questions of fact.

The Plaintiff therefore argues that the application falls squarely within the purpose of Order 14A and that the determination of those Questions would materially advance the disposal of the present action.

The Plaintiff relies, among others, on the previous High Court and Court of Appeal decisions concerning the Mental Health proceedings and on authorities said to support the invocation of Order 14A where the material facts have already been determined.

The Defendants oppose the application.

They submit that the Plaintiff has misconceived both the effect of the previous proceedings and the proper scope of Order 14A.

The Defendants contend that the proposed Questions cannot properly be divorced from the factual and legal issues raised in the pleadings and that they do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Order 14A.

In particular, the Defendants submit that the proposed Questions involve issues which remain intertwined with the substantive dispute in the present action and that their determination would neither finally determine the action nor substantially dispose of any issue therein.

The Defendants further contend that the application seeks, in substance, an advance determination of issues which ought properly to be determined only after the Court has considered the complete factual matrix and the evidence to be adduced at the trial.

Accordingly, the Defendants submit that the application should be dismissed with costs.

Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to determine a question of law or the construction of a document at any stage of the proceedings where the prescribed requirements are satisfied.

The jurisdiction serves an important procedural purpose. It enables the Court, in an appropriate case, to determine a pure question of law without the necessity of a full trial where such determination would dispose of the whole action or substantially dispose of the cause or matter.

However, the jurisdiction is not intended to replace the trial process. The Court retains a discretion whether to determine a question under Order 14A, and must be satisfied that the proposed question is genuinely suitable for separate determination and that doing so would facilitate, rather than fragment, the disposal of the litigation.

The applicable principles were authoritatively considered by the Federal Court in Thein Hong Teck & Ors v Mohd Afrizan bin Husain [2012] 2 MLJ 299. The Federal Court reaffirmed that Order 14A may only be invoked where there is no dispute as to the relevant facts or where, upon scrutinising the pleadings, the Court is satisfied that the material facts are not in dispute. More importantly, the Federal Court observed: "It is trite law that O14A ... may only be resorted to if there is no dispute by the parties as to the relevant facts, or that the court, upon scrutinising the pleadings, concludes that the material facts are not in dispute... Where the issues of fact are interwoven with legal issues raised, it will be undesirable for the court to split the legal and factual determination, for to do so would inevitably be to give rulings in vacuo or on a hypothetical ruling, which the court will not do."

This principle is of particular significance. It underscores that the Court should not determine a question of law in isolation where doing so would necessarily require the Court to pronounce upon issues that properly belong to the trial or where the legal issues cannot realistically be separated from the factual and procedural context in which they arise.

The present application must therefore be examined by reference to its substance rather than its form. The mere fact that a question is framed as a "Question of Law" does not, without more, render it appropriate for determination under Order 14A. The Court must be satisfied that answering the proposed question would not require it to trespass into issues that are properly reserved for determination at the trial.

The parties also relied upon authorities concerning the substantive doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process. In Cheah Boon Hoe v Lee Choon Hei [2022] 4 MLJ 94, the Federal Court reaffirmed that the doctrine of res judicata applies only where the same issue had previously been raised and finally determined in earlier proceedings involving the same parties or their privies.

Likewise, in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 189, the Federal Court explained that the doctrine of res judicata is founded upon the public policy that there must be finality in litigation. Once a matter has been finally adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties are precluded from relitigating the same matter.

Conversely, the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Murali v Department of Health and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1614 illustrates that earlier proceedings do not automatically render every subsequent dispute res judicata. Where subsequent events give rise to a different cause of action or materially alter the legal context, the earlier proceedings may constitute part of the evidential background without necessarily determining the subsequent issue.

This Court expresses no concluded view on the ultimate applicability of those doctrines to the present action. Those are substantive issues which remain in dispute between the parties. However, the authorities relied upon by both parties demonstrate that determining such questions ordinarily requires a careful examination of the earlier proceedings, the issues actually decided therein, the subsequent pleadings and the legal consequences said to flow from those decisions.

It is against these established principles that the Plaintiff's application under Order 14A falls to be determined. F. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT Whether the Proposed Questions are Suitable for Determination under Order 14A

Having carefully considered the pleadings, the affidavits filed by the parties, the written and oral submissions of learned counsel and the authorities relied upon, this Court was not persuaded that Enclosure 230 falls within the proper scope of Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012.

In arriving at that conclusion, this Court considered it necessary to examine not merely the wording of the proposed Questions, but their substance and their relationship with the issues raised in the present action.

The Court accepts that the Plaintiff has framed the proposed Questions as questions of law. However, the characterisation of a question as one of law is not, by itself, determinative of whether it is appropriate for determination under Order 14A.

As recognised by the Federal Court in Thein Hong Teck & Ors, the Court must be satisfied that the material facts are not in dispute and that the legal question is capable of separate determination without becoming intertwined with issues properly reserved for trial. Where the factual and legal issues are interwoven, it is undesirable to determine the legal issues separately, lest the Court be drawn into making rulings in vacuo or on a hypothetical basis.

It is therefore necessary for this Court to examine whether the proposed Questions are genuinely capable of separate determination or whether they substantially overlap with the substantive issues raised in the present action.

Upon examining the pleadings, this Court found that the Plaintiff's claim is founded substantially upon the legal consequences said to arise from the previous Mental Health proceedings and the subsequent appellate decisions.

The declaratory and consequential reliefs sought by the Plaintiff are premised upon the contention that those earlier proceedings have conclusively determined the parties' respective rights and that the Defendants are no longer entitled to advance certain legal positions.

Conversely, the Defence disputes those alleged legal consequences and denies that the earlier proceedings produce the legal effect contended for by the Plaintiff.

It follows that the legal effect of the previous proceedings is not merely a collateral issue arising incidentally in the litigation. It constitutes one of the principal issues which the trial Court will ultimately be required to determine.

It is against that pleading framework that the three proposed Questions must be examined.

The first proposed Question seeks a determination that the Defendants are barred, by reason of res judicata and/or abuse of process, from commencing any future proceedings against the Plaintiff under the Mental Health Act 2001.

On its face, that Question appears to be framed as a legal issue. However, in substance, the Court considered that its determination necessarily requires an examination of the earlier proceedings, the issues actually determined therein, the scope and effect of the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and the legal consequences said to arise from those decisions.

Indeed, the authorities relied upon by the parties themselves illustrate that the applicability of res judicata depends upon whether the same issue had previously been raised and finally determined between the same parties, whilst the decision in Murali v Department of Health and Others demonstrates that subsequent proceedings may involve different causes of action notwithstanding reliance upon earlier events.

Determining those matters would necessarily involve an examination of the very issues which the Plaintiff relies upon in support of the substantive declaratory reliefs sought in the present action.

In the judgment of this Court, Question 1 therefore extends beyond a discrete question of law. It goes directly to one of the central issues which the trial Court must ultimately determine after considering the entirety of the evidence and the parties' respective legal arguments.

Questions 2 and 3 seek declarations that paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Defence are legally unsustainable.

While expressed as challenges to particular paragraphs of the Defence, the Court was not persuaded that those Questions can properly be divorced from the substantive issues arising in the present action.

A pleading must always be considered in the context of the case as a whole. The legal sustainability of an individual paragraph cannot ordinarily be determined in isolation where that pleading forms part of the Defendants' substantive answer to the Plaintiff's claim.

In the present case, paragraphs 4 and 6 form part of the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's reliance upon the previous proceedings and the legal consequences allegedly flowing therefrom.

Accordingly, determining whether those pleaded defences are legally sustainable would inevitably require the Court to determine the legal consequences of the previous proceedings and the parties' competing interpretations of those proceedings.

Those are matters which lie at the heart of the present action and which remain to be determined by the trial Court.

The Court next considered whether determining the proposed Questions at this interlocutory stage would materially dispose of the action or substantially narrow the issues remaining for trial.

In the judgment of this Court, the answer is in the negative.

Even if the Plaintiff were to succeed on each of the proposed Questions, substantial issues arising from the pleadings, together with the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and consequential relief, would nevertheless remain for determination at trial.

The proposed determination would therefore not eliminate the necessity for a trial. Rather, it would require the Court to determine, in advance of the trial, issues which substantially overlap with those that the trial Court will ultimately be required to determine comprehensively.

Such an approach would not promote the efficient administration of justice. Instead, it carries the real risk of fragmenting the determination of the principal controversy and duplicating the legal analysis which would inevitably be undertaken again at trial.

Finally, even assuming that the proposed Questions may be characterised as questions of law, the Court retains a discretion whether to determine them under Order 14A.

Having considered the nature of the issues raised, the pleadings, the reliefs claimed and the authorities relied upon by the parties, this Court was not persuaded that this is an appropriate case for the exercise of that discretion.

In the circumstances of the present case, the interests of justice are better served by permitting the issues to be determined comprehensively at the trial, where the Court will have the benefit of the complete factual matrix, the entirety of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the parties' full legal submissions.

This approach is consistent with the purpose of Order 14A, which is to facilitate the efficient disposal of litigation, and not to divide the principal controversy into separate interlocutory determinations.

Where, as here, the proposed Questions substantially coincide with the issues which the trial Court will ultimately be required to determine, the proper course is for those issues to be decided comprehensively upon the full evidence at trial.

Having considered the pleadings, affidavits, submissions and the applicable legal principles, this Court was not persuaded that the Plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for the invocation of Order 14A.

The Court concluded that the proposed Questions of Law substantially overlap with the substantive issues arising in the main action and are therefore unsuitable for separate determination at this interlocutory stage.

The trial remains the appropriate forum for the comprehensive determination of those issues after the Court has had the benefit of considering the complete factual matrix, the evidence and the parties' full legal submissions.

It follows that nothing contained in this decision should be understood as expressing any concluded view on the applicability of the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel or abuse of process, or upon the ultimate merits of the Plaintiff's claims or the Defendants' pleaded defences. Those issues remain to be determined by the trial Court.

For the foregoing reasons, Enclosure 230 was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause. Dated: 23rd July 2026 …………………………………………….. (YA PUAN MAHAZAN BINTI MAT TAIB) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR Counsel for The Plaintiff : Y. C. Wong & Noah Kai Sheng (MOB) Messrs. Y.C. Wong (Kuala Lumpur) Advocates & Solicitors Counsel for The Defendants : Lim Wei Jiet & Nevyn Vinosh Venudran Messrs. Lim Wei Jiet (Kuala Lumpur)