VISHAAK A/L RAMESH 1. ) RAVINNA A/P RAMAN 2. ) Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat

VISHAAK A/L RAMESH 1. ) RAVINNA A/P RAMAN 2. ) Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat

Applicant failed to plead or evidence special circumstances connected to enforcement of the Tribunal award; assertions of reputational harm were bare averments and insufficient; merits and evidentiary disputes (identity of uploader) are to be determined at the substantive JR; therefore stay of execution was not justified and application dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-25-321-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Applicant: Vishaak a/l Ramesh; First Respondent: Ravinna a/p Raman; Second Respondent: Tribunal bagi Antigangguan Seksual, Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Case Number
WA-25-321-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Judicial Review; Interim Stay Considered and Stay Application Dismissed
Outcome
Stay application dismissed for want of merit
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Judicial Review, Enforcement of Tribunal Awards, Anti Sexual Harassment Act 2022, Damages for Non Consensual Dissemination
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Statutory Tribunals Sexual Harassment Law Stay of Execution Judicial Review Enforcement of Tribunal Awards Anti Sexual Harassment Act 2022 +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishaak a/l Ramesh

Applicant

Ravinna a/p Raman

First Respondent

Tribunal bagi Antigangguan Seksual, Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Judicial Review; Interim Stay Considered and Stay Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to justify a stay of execution under Order 53 r.5(3) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the Anti-Sexual Harassment Tribunal's Borang 4 award should be stayed pending disposal of the substantive JR

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to plead or evidence special circumstances connected to enforcement of the Tribunal award; assertions of reputational harm were bare averments and insufficient; merits and evidentiary disputes (identity of uploader) are to be determined at the substantive JR; therefore stay of execution was not justified and application dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Stay application dismissed for want of merit

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed
  • Costs in the cause