MUHAMMAD IZMER BIN YUSOF [NO. K/P: 820623-09-5151] ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HASIM [NO. K/P: 821014-09-5089

MUHAMMAD IZMER BIN YUSOF [NO. K/P: 820623-09-5151] ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HASIM [NO. K/P: 821014-09-5089

The impugned paragraph 11 was an adverse comment and reason for allowing the defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment based on the defendant’s affidavit and lack of particulars; it did not constitute a prejudgment of the main defamation trial or create a real danger of bias. The appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality; appeal dismissed with costs RM5,000.00.

Citation
RA-12A-2-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Muhammad Izmer bin Yusof; Respondent/defendant: Abdul Rahman bin Hasim
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 September 2021
Case Number
RA-12A-2-05-2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Recuse Judge From Hearing Defamation Suit After Setting Aside of Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recusal, Bias, Prejudgment, Set Aside Default Judgment, Particulars (order 78), Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Defamation Judicial Conduct Recusal Bias Prejudgment Set Aside Default Judgment Particulars (order 78) +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Izmer bin Yusof

Appellant/plaintiff

Abdul Rahman bin Hasim

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Recuse Judge From Hearing Defamation Suit After Setting Aside of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 11 of the Sessions Court judgment amounted to prejudgment creating a real danger of bias warranting recusal
  2. 2 Whether adverse comments made in interlocutory judgment based on material before the court can ground a recusal
  3. 3 Whether loss at interlocutory stage justifies recusal or is tactical judge‑shopping

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned paragraph 11 was an adverse comment and reason for allowing the defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment based on the defendant’s affidavit and lack of particulars; it did not constitute a prejudgment of the main defamation trial or create a real danger of bias. The appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality; appeal dismissed with costs RM5,000.00.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent in the sum of RM5,000.00