PEMPETISYEN R I N 1. ) M I N 2. ) V I N

PEMPETISYEN R I N 1. ) M I N 2. ) V I N

The court exercised its statutory discretion under s15 Courts of Judicature Act to grant anonymisation and publication bans in modified terms because the privacy and welfare interests of the parties (including adult children), the risk of harm from disclosure, prevention of jigsaw identification, and the absence of a genuine overriding public interest outweighed the presumptive principle of open justice; the Respondent's public office did not negate entitlement to anonymity and costs were appropriate.

Citation
WA-33-143-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: RIN; Respondent: MIN; Co Respondent: VIN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 March 2025
Case Number
WA-33-143-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition (matrimonial/family Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application for Anonymisation (application Hearing/case Management)
Outcome
Application allowed in modified form; anonymisation and publication restrictions granted; costs awarded to Respondent.
Legal Topics
Anonymisation, Publication Bans, Open Justice, Public Interest Vs Public Curiosity, Jigsaw Identification, Costs, Court Discretion Under Statute
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Anonymisation Publication Bans Open Justice Public Interest Vs Public Curiosity +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RIN

Petitioner

MIN

Respondent

VIN

Co Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition (matrimonial/family Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application for Anonymisation (application Hearing/case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties and witnesses in matrimonial proceedings should be anonymised
  2. 2 Whether anonymity is negated by the children being over 18
  3. 3 Whether public interest/public curiosity requires disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its statutory discretion under s15 Courts of Judicature Act to grant anonymisation and publication bans in modified terms because the privacy and welfare interests of the parties (including adult children), the risk of harm from disclosure, prevention of jigsaw identification, and the absence of a genuine overriding public interest outweighed the presumptive principle of open justice; the Respondent's public office did not negate entitlement to anonymity and costs were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in modified form; anonymisation and publication restrictions granted; costs awarded to Respondent.

Orders

  • Names, addresses, details and any evidence likely to lead to identification of the parties, the children and witnesses shall not be published in grounds of judgment(s) and shall be referred to by assigned alphabets: Petitioner as "RIN"; Respondent as "MIN"; elder child "RSD"; younger child "ASD"; Co-Respondent "VIN".
  • Full addresses of immovable properties referred to in cause papers shall not be published in grounds of judgment(s).