HONG YIK PLASTICS (M) SDN BHD v HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD & ANOR [2019] mlju 1386

Court of Appeal (Putrajaya)

Fair Trial – Judicial Impartiality – Adversarial System  

1. The Plaintiff (“Appellant”) initiated an action in the High Court against the Defendant (“Respondent”) for patent infringement.
2. The Appellant sought various remedies, including a declaration, injunctive relief, an account of profits, general damages, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages.
3. In response, the Respondent counterclaimed for revocation of the patent and a declaration of non-infringement.
4. The High Court (“HC”) decided in favour of the Respondent.
5. Dissatisfied with the trial process and the outcome, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (“COA”).
6. The Appellant contended that the learned trial judge had conducted the proceedings in a manner that was prejudicial, citing repeated interruptions, premature judgments and hostile remarks, thereby infringing the Appellant’s right to a fair trial.
7. It was submitted that the trial judge’s conduct constituted a serious departure from the principle of judicial impartiality.
8. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that although the trial judge’s conduct was condescending, the Respondent’s witness was also chided.
9. The Respondent maintained that the trial was conducted over five days, the evidence was duly considered and the trial judge’s comments were directed to the Appellant’s counsel and not the Plaintiff’s witness.
10. It was further contended that the decision of the High Court was based on the evidence and applicable legal principles.

(a)      The COA reaffirmed that Malaysia adopts an adversarial system under which judges must remain neutral and impartial throughout the proceedings.

(b)      Hence, judicial intervention should be limited to clarifying ambiguities or facilitating the orderly conduct of proceedings.

(c)      A fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, requires substantive justice and adherence to procedural fairness grounded in the principles of natural justice, namely nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem.

(d)      The COA citing Jan Tomasz Serafin v Grzegorz Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852, the Court stressed that fairness demands the judge must not appear as an advocate and must ensure that both parties are afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

(e)  The COA emphasised the importance of the trial judge not to ‘descend into the arena’, thereby depriving herself of the ability to form a detached view in forming a decision.

(f)   The COA found that the trial judge’s conduct was marked by premature judgment, hostile remarks, and excessive interventions which compromised judicial impartiality and denied the Appellant a fair hearing.

(g) The seriousness and cumulative effect of such conduct warranted appellate intervention.

(h)  Accordingly, the COA held that the trial judge had erred in law and fact by depriving the Appellant of a fair trial through unfair judicial treatment and improper rejection of evidence.

2.    Excessive judicial intervention and prejudgment may amount to a denial of a fair hearing.

3.    The appellate court may intervene and order a retrial where the trial judge’s conduct materially affects the right to a fair trial.