THE PALACE OF JUSTICE CIVIL APPEAL NO. P-02-2074-2011 ...

Peculiarity of High Court’s Order
Finally it is disquieting for us to note from the notes of evidence, the
grounds of judgment of the learned High Court Judge and the sealed
Order of the High Court that the learned High Court Judge only made
a finding of liability on the defendants (who are the second and third
defendants before the High Court). No finding of liability (or
otherwise) was made against the first defendant who was absent and
did not participate in the High Court proceeding. Although there is the
other defendant to the action, namely, Rakyat Corporation, the first
defendant, yet the notes of evidence, the grounds of judgment of the
learned Judge and the sealed Order of the High Court appear to have
just ignored the existence of this other party. The notes of evidence,
the grounds of judgment and the sealed Order of the High Court had
merely focused on the second and third defendants.
To add to this puzzle, in his notes of evidence and grounds of
judgment (and confirmed by the sealed Order), the learned High
Court Judge, as we have pointed out earlier, found the defendants
(meaning the second and third defendants) to be only ‘50% liable’,
thus implying that the second and third defendants are mere co-
43