Vishaak A/L Ramesh v 1. ) Ravinna A/P Raman (WA-25-321-08/2024)

For ease of reference, I reproduced the said application (L.1) as follows: “i) bahawa kebenaran diberi kepada Pemohon yang tersebut di atas bagi memohon suatu Perintah Certiorari untuk beralih ke Mahkamah yang Mulia ini yang bertujuan untuk mengenepikan atau 60 membatalkan keputusan BORANG 4 (Award Aduan Gangguan Seksual) yang diturunkan oleh Responden Kedua pada 1.8.2024. ii) bahawa semua prosiding-prosiding dan/atau tindakan-tindakan lanjutan dan/atau apa-apa pun permohonan berhubungan dengan keputusan BORANG 4 (Award Aduan Gangguan 65 Seksual) yang diturunkan oleh Responden Kedua pada 1.8.2024 untuk pelaksanaan atau pengkuatkuasaan keputusan tersebut digantung sementara menunggu pelupusan penuh dan sehingga keputusan muktamad perkara ini oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. 70 iii) bahawa semua arahan sebagaimana yang perlu dan sesuai diberikan; dan iv) bahawa kos permohonan ini dan berirlngan permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa.” 75

The subject matter of this proceeding:

Can be seen in Borang 4 (L.2, PDF pp.25-29), and the Grounds of Judgment (Lampiran A) to support the finding of fault and the award against the Applicant by R2 (Tribunal Antigangguan Seksual Kementerian Pembangunan 80 Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat). S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

After the finding of fault, R2 had imposed the following award against the Applicant in Borang 4, the enforcement of which he seeks to stay in a nutshell as follows:

The Applicant is ordered to issue and sign a formal written apology 85 in the English or Bahasa Melayu language for taking naked photographs of R1 (the complainant), without her knowledge, and publishing or uploading them on social media platforms with the intent to injure her.

(ii) The Applicant is ordered to attend counselling sessions by 90 Yayasan Kebajikan Negara on dates to be fixed by the Yayasan within three (3) months from the date of this award.

(iii) The Applicant is ordered to compensate the R1 (the complainant) a sum of RM60,000.00 into her Maybank Account No: 158305582748 in twelve equal payments of RM5,000.00 per 95 month, commencing from 25.08.2024 until 25.07.2025.

(iv) The grounds of this award are found in Lampiran A. [3] I heard this stay application on 16.06.2025. After reviewing the cause papers filed, the respective written submissions of the parties, and 100 hearing both counsels, I find that this application has no merit and is dismissed with costs in the cause. [4] Dissatisfied with the decision, the Applicant filed a notice of appeal on 02.07.2025. My reasons are as follows: 105 BRIEF FACTS [5] The brief facts are as follows:

5.1 The applicant:

Is seeking a Judicial Review (JR) to challenge and to quash by 110 an order of certiorari the decision of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Tribunal (R2) of the Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat that had handed an Anti-Sexual Harassment Award under Borang 4 that was served on the applicant on 01.08.2024. 115 S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

Pending the determination of his JR action to challenge the impugned Borang 4, he seeks a stay order of all existing and future proceedings (enforcement/execution of the said order) concerning the impugned Borang 4.

5.2 The applicant claimed that:

At the time, R1 was his ex-girlfriend. They have had a long-distance relationship since 2018. They had issues and parted ways in October 2023.

On 17.01.2024:

He was informed that nude pictures of R1 were uploaded and 125 distributed by unknown persons on Tumbler.com and Telegram online platforms. R1 had lodged a police report identifying the applicant as the person responsible.

The police investigated him, but no arrest was made, and neither was he charged with any offences. The police are still 130 investigating to nail the person responsible.

R1 lodged a complaint with R2 that gave her the Anti-Sexual Harassment Award on 01.08.2024, that ordered the

To offer a written apology.

(ii) To attend counselling.

(iii) To pay RM60,000.00 damages to R1.

The Applicant intends to challenge the legitimacy of the impugned award by R2 and requires a stay order on the said award while 140 the Court proceedings are ongoing. S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

The learned judge had granted leave on 11.11.2024 to commence the JR proceeding. All that is required now is to obtain a stay pending the disposal of L1. SUBMISSION BY THE PARTIES 145 I have duly considered, examined, and observed the parties' arguments, which, in a nutshell, are as follows: [6]

SUBMISSION BY THE APPLICANT 1 Stay is permissible under O.53 r.5(3) RC 2012, provided always there 150 are special circumstances to justify a stay. If the stay is not granted, the impugned award could have far-reaching adverse consequences for the applicant's image and reputation, who is still single at present, and who now seeks appropriate legal redress to challenge the impugned award. 155 6.2 There is no evidence to identify the applicant at the tribunal as the one responsible for uploading the nude pictures of R1. Even the police officer who gave evidence could not identify the applicant as the person responsible. 160 [7]

SUBMISSION BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (R1) 1 The Court on 11.11.2024 granted leave to commence JR when the AGC had no objection. An interim stay, pending the disposal of the inter-partes Stay Application, was also given. 165 7.2 R1 brought a claim for sexual harassment at the tribunal on 25.04.2024 for non-consensual dissemination of R1’s naked photographs. In making its determination, the Tribunal observed that:

Parties were in a relationship until October 2023. S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

The applicant admitted that he had taken nude photographs of 170 R1.

Her friend informed R1 about her nude photographs on social media platforms. The Tribunal took into consideration that the photos were still circulating after 08.03.2024.

The Applicant admitted that he threatened to release/publish the 175 photographs on social media to humiliate her.

On 01.08.2024, the Tribunal unanimously found that R1 succeeded in establishing her case on a balance of probabilities and granted her the impugned award with the three foregoing orders.

7.3 Section 22 of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2022, provides:

An award by the Tribunal made under section “shall be final and binding on all parties to the proceeding”.

It has the same effect as “an order of a court and can be enforced 185 accordingly by any party to the proceedings”.

However, it may still be challenged at the High Court as per section 233 of the Act.

7.4 R1 argued that:

There are no special circumstances to justify a stay in L1.

She cited in support Ling Peek Hoe & Anor v Ding Siew Ching & Ors [2022] 12 MLJ 65, HC, which held that mere preservation of the status quo will not suffice to prove the existence of special circumstances to necessitate a stay.

Maintaining the status quo until the litigation is finally resolved is not the purpose for which the inherent jurisdiction is invoked. S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

Something quite exceptional must be shown before that jurisdiction is exercised. 200 THE LAW [8] The law on stay:

8.1 Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd V Koperasi Serbausaha Makmur Bhd [2004] 1 MLJ 257, where the Federal Court ruled: “(3) The onus is on the applicants to demonstrate the existence of 205 special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay of execution. The reasons must relate to the enforcement of the judgment. They must be deposed in the affidavit filed in support of the application. …Furthermore, the applicants had not put forward reasons that 210 were related to the enforcement of the judgement; instead, they had focused on the problems that the applicant would encounter if the motion were not successful.”

8.2 In Universal Trustee (M) Bhd v Lambang Pertama Sdn Bhd & Anor 215 [2015] 7 MLJ 305, KK Wong J (as his Lordship JCA then was) said that case law does not distinguish stay of execution from stay of proceedings; case law requires both the applicants for stay of execution and stay of proceedings to show 'special circumstances' to justify a stay; and an applicant for a stay of proceedings should bear 220 a heavier burden vis a vis an applicant for a stay of execution because such an application hinders the expeditious disposal of a suit.

8.3 In a nutshell, stay is legally defined as suspension of the case or some designated proceedings within it. The guiding principles are:

The court has broad judicial discretion whether to grant or refuse a stay anchored on established judicial principles. S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ

The degree of importance ascribed to the factor pleaded is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case (see Mohamed Mustafa v Kandasami [1979] 1 MLJ 126).

Special circumstances, as the phrase implies, must be distinguished from ordinary circumstances. It must be something exceptional in character, something that exceeds or excels in some way that which is usual or common (see: Ming Ann Holdings Sdn Bhd v Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd [2002] 3 MLJ 235 49; Kosma Palm Oil Mill Sdn Bhd(supra)).

The Rules of Court 2012 did not stipulate any specific definition of what constitutes special circumstances, but the word "special" denotes an exceptional situation, which is left practically to the opinion and judicial discretion of presiding judges (see: Leong 240 Poh Shee v Ng Kat Chong [1966] 1 MLJ 86).

The category of special circumstances can never be limited or closed, as from time to time and from case to case, different and various factors may be accepted as special circumstances (see: Low Nam Hui & Sons Sdn Bhd v Huang Yan Teo [2007] 7 245 MLJ 13). FINDINGS OF THIS COURT [9] In determining the Applicant’s application for a stay of execution:

I have examined and considered all cause papers and the parties' respective submissions.

I have also examined the Anti-Sexual Harassment Award under Borang 4, served on the applicant on 01.08.2024.

The applicant stated that if the stay is not granted, the impugned 255 award could have far-reaching adverse consequences for the S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ applicant's image and reputation, who is still single at present, and who now seeks appropriate legal redress to challenge the impugned award, which I find was not supported by any evidence and is just a bare averment. The fact that the applicant said that 260 there is no evidence to show the applicant at the tribunal as the one responsible for uploading the nude pictures of R1 is to be considered at the substantive hearing of this JR. It is my finding that there are no special circumstances averred by the Applicant to warrant a stay as prayed in L1 265 CONCLUSION [10] In light of the foregoing and after closely scrutinising the application, on the balance of probabilities, I find that this application is devoid of merit, and it is dismissed with costs in the cause. 270 Dated 30.07.2025 HAYATUL AKMAL ABDUL AZIZ 275 JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 280 For the Applicant: S. Mohan Kumar Messrs Mohan Kumar 285 For the First Respondent (R1): Kee Hui Yee, together with Tan Xu Yin Messrs Kanesalingam & Co S/N eJbSsfnphE6y0v4vcpBgqQ