PETALING JAYA: A High Court in Ipoh has dismissed a judicial review application by a commercial bank to quash a compensation award of RM475,000 to its former senior manager for unfair dismissal. Justice Bhupinder Singh said he found no reason to disturb the findings of the Industrial Court delivered in 2019. Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd had named its former employee, Razak Kassim, and the Industrial Court as respondents to the application. Bhupinder also ordered the bank to pay RM7,000 in costs to Razak, 54. On Dec 17, 2019, Industrial Court chairman Rasidah Chik ruled that the bank had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the termination was fair. Razak joined the company on July 1, 1986 and was terminated on Dec 16, 2013, following a domestic inquiry. At the time of his dismissal, he was employed as a senior manager at the bank’s Ipoh branch, earning a monthly salary and allowance amounting to RM10,213. The company alleged that the domestic inquiry panel found Razak guilty of two counts of misconduct. Razak was alleged to have advised his subordinates to disburse RM23 million in loan facilities to a company without due diligence. He was also accused of failing to advise his officers not to proceed with the approval of four drawdown claims for local suppliers and seven foreign suppliers despite being aware they had submitted fraudulent documents. Lawyers Ramesh NP Chandran and Tejal Harash represented Razak while Yong Hon Cheong appeared for the bank.
Siti Nuramira Abdullah’s trial over her controversial stand-up routine was adjourned to tomorrow as she is on medical leave (MC) due to gastroenteritis. Her counsel Ramesh NP Chandran said the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court today postponed the proceedings to tomorrow when she is expected to be able to attend. The lawyer added that the first prosecution witness Muhammad Ashraf Kamal Musthaffa would be on the witness stand tomorrow to continue cross-examination by Siti Nuramira’s legal team. Ashraf was the host of the open mic show where Siti Nuramira took the stage at Crackhouse Comedy Club in Taman Tun Dr Ismail (TTDI) in Kuala Lumpur on June 4 last year. During proceedings before trial judge Nor Hasniah Ab Razak yesterday, the witness testified that her comedic routine violated the religious aspect of the “3R” principle to ensure respectful public discourse in Malaysia, which encompasses the sensitive topics of race, religion, and royalty. On July 13 last year, Siti Nuramira claimed trial to a charge under Section 298A of the Penal Code, a provision that deals with the offence of causing disharmony, disunity, enmity, hatred, ill-will, or prejudicing maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions. According to the charge, she was alleged to have committed the offence by claiming she memorised 15 juzuk (chapters) of the Quran, then disrobing from her baju kurung and taking off her tudung during the performance around 6pm last June. She could be jailed for up to five years if convicted. She is out on bail of RM20,000, which was raised through crowdfunding. Previously, a video of a woman - allegedly Siti Nuramira - taking off her headscarf and baju kurung on stage at a comedy club went viral on social media.
KUALA LUMPUR (July 20): Siti Nuramira Abdullah, the woman at the centre of the Crackhouse Comedy Club controversy, will no longer be facing charges in the Shariah Court amid uproar over the risk of double jeopardy, her lawyer confirmed today. The 26-year-old woman was charged in the civil court last week and was arrested by Federal Territories Islamic Affairs Department law enforcers two days ago, and told she would be charged later in the Shariah Court with insulting Islam. In a statement sighted by Malay Mail, prosecutors have decided against pressing charges against Siti Nuramira based on local Shariah laws. “This is in line with the Shariah objective (maqasid) that stresses the approach of discipline (ta’dib) in the administration of Shariah criminal law, which is hoped to bring the accused back to Islamic practice,” the department’s chief prosecutor was quoted saying in the statement. The department said that the criminal charge under Section 298A of the Penal Code provided a heavier punishment. Siti Nuramira’s lawyer, Ramesh NP Chandran, told Malay Mail the statement means his client is free from legal prosecution under Shariah laws, but added that she has also surrendered her passport to the civil Sessions Court. Siti Nuramira’s allegedly offensive stand-up comedy routine began with a video of her claiming that she had memorised half the Quran, before removing her headscarf and baju kurung to reveal a spaghetti strap top and miniskirt on stage. The video was reportedly taken and posted online by her partner, V. Alexander Navin, 38, where it circulated by social media users who added a caption claiming that the display was an insult to Islam, leading to backlash from Muslims. Siti Nuramira was charged with causing disharmony on grounds of religion among the Muslims on July 13 at the Sessions Court here under Section 298A(1)(a) of the Penal Code, which provides imprisonment for up to five years if found guilty. Her partner, Alexander Navin was separately charged with two counts of improper use of network facilities by making and initiating the transmission of offensive videos on Instagram and YouTube on June 5 and June 16.
Siti Nuramira Abdullah’s lawyer asked for a lenient sentence on the grounds that his client did not have a prior conviction. Remember the woman who partially “stripped” at a comedy club last year? Today, the 27-year old who was at the centre of a controversial open mic stand-up comedy act at the Crackhouse Comedy Club, was fined RM8,000 in default four months’ jail by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. According to a report by the New Straits Times, Siti Nuramira Abdullah also pleaded guilty to an alternative charge under Section 298 of the Penal Code as she was also accused of deliberately wounding the religious feelings of others during her act. It was also reported that Siti Nuramira had previously pleaded not guilty to the charges when she was first charged on July 13, 2022. However, according to her lawyer Ramesh N. P. Chandran, she had decided to change her plea after the prosecution offered an alternative charge. The New Straits Times also reported that the deputy public prosecutor, Abdul Malik Ayob informed the court that the accused was offered the alternative charge following the decision by the Attorney General’s Chambers to accept her March 16 representation letter. Her lawyer had also asked for a lenient sentence on the grounds that his client did not have a prior conviction. According to reports, he said: She was married four months ago and wants a peaceful life. As a wife, she wants to devote herself to her marriage… she was very remorseful and apologised to all parties involved. Lawyer Ramesh N. P. Chandran Siti Nuramira had allegedly made degrading religious remarks and took off her baju kurung during her open mic routine on stage. In the 45-second video that previously went viral, she also claimed to be a Muslim and to have memorised 15 chapters (juzuk) of the Quran. Earlier, it was reported that Crackhouse Comedy Club had lodged a police report at the Taman Tun Dr Ismail police station against Siti Nuramira, adding that she and her partner had been banned from the venue immediately after the performance.
PETALING JAYA: A man was charged in the Sessions Court here today with two counts of improper use of network facilities by making and initiating the transmission of offensive videos on Instagram and YouTube. V. Alexander Navin, 38, pleaded not guilty to the charges before Judge Azrul Darus. According to the two charges, the man allegedly made and initiated the transmission of offensive communications with intent to annoy others via the Instagram app using the Twitter profile name 'greenleafyconnoiseur' and on YouTube, using the profile name 'Alex & Amy @ insta Greenleafyconnoiseur', last June 5 and June 16. The postings were read at a condominium in Damansara Perdana here, at 10.30am last July 9. Both the charges were filed under Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and punishable under Section 233 (3) of the same law. If convicted, he is liable to a maximum fine of RM50,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or both and shall also be liable to a further fine of RM1,000 for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction. The court allowed him bail of RM20,000 with one surety on both charges and set Sept 1 for mention for submission of documents. Deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Firdaous Mohamed Idris prosecuted, while lawyer R. Sivaraj, assisted by lawyer Ramesh N.P.Chandran, represented the accused. Earlier, Siti Nuramira Abdullah, 26, pleaded not guilty to the charge before Sessions Court judge Siti Aminah Ghazali with causing disharmony on grounds of religion among the Muslims. Alexander and Siti Nuramira were arrested by the police following the release of a 54-second video that went viral. It shows a woman in baju kurung and wearing a hijab who later stripped during a performance at a comedy club.
A civil court in Ipoh dismissed a commercial bank’s judicial review to quash the Industrial Court’s award of over RM471,840.60 to its former senior manager over an unfair dismissal case. Counsel Ramesh NP Chandran, who acted for respondent Abd Razak Mohd Kassim, confirmed that the High Court yesterday denied the legal action by Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd. The lawyer said that judge Bhupinder Singh ruled the civil court found no reason to disturb the Industrial Court award dated Dec 17, 2019, and ordered the bank to pay RM7,000 costs to Razak. According to the Industrial Court ruling, its chairperson Rasidah Chik ruled that the bank had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Razak’s termination of service was due to a fair reason. Razak began working with the bank on July 1, 1986, as an assistant manager and managed to move up to senior manager and trade sales support officer at the bank’s Ipoh branch, before his employment was terminated in late 2013. On May 29, 2013, the bank had issued a show-cause letter to Razak for allegedly acting beyond his powers as bank manager, with four counts of misconduct levelled against him. Fraudulent documents One of the misconduct allegations (first charge) was that he had wrongly advised his subordinates at the Ipoh branch to disburse over RM23 million in loans to a company with no due diligence. Another misconduct allegation (fourth charge) was that he had failed to advise the bank branch officers to not proceed with four drawdown claims for local suppliers and seven drawdown claims for foreign suppliers, despite being aware that fraudulent documents were submitted for the drawdowns. Despite responding on June 14, 2013, the bank was dissatisfied with his explanation and conducted an internal inquiry as well as suspended him on July 29 that year. Following an internal probe conducted between Aug 20, 2013, and Oct 23, 2013, the bank dismissed Razak on Dec 16 that year, following its finding he was liable for the first and fourth charges. He then went to the Industrial Court on Aug 8, 2014. On April 2, 2020, the bank went to the civil court to overturn the award, contending, among others, that the Industrial Court erred when considering all testimonies given by the bank’s witnesses during the internal probe. Malaysiakini is attempting to reach out to the bank’s legal team from law firm Zaid Ibrahim & Co over the matter.
PETALING JAYA: Teman lelaki kepada wanita yang didakwa menanggalkan baju dan tudungnya di sebuah kelab komedi baru-baru ini, dihadapkan ke Mahkamah Sesyen di sini, hari ini atas pertuduhan memuat naik hantaran jelik di media sosial dengan niat menyakitkan hati. V Alexander Navin, 38, mengaku tidak bersalah atas dua pertuduhan yang dibacakan berasingan di hadapan Hakim Azrul Darus. Bagi pertuduhan pertama, Alexander didakwa pada 5 Jun lalu memuat naik hantaran menyakitkan hati di akaun Twitter 'greenleafyconnoiseur' dan di pautan Instagram dengan niat menyakitkan hati orang lain. Kesalahan itu didakwa dilakukan di Perdana View Condominium, Jalan PJU 8/1, Damansara Perdana, di sini. Dia didakwa mengikut Seksyen 233 (1) (a) Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia 1998 yang memperuntukkan denda tidak melebihi RM50,000 atau penjara tidak melebihi setahun atau kedua-duanya jika sabit kesalahan. Bagi pertuduhan kedua, lelaki itu dituduh membuat dan memulakan penghantaran dengan menggunakan perkhidmatan komunikasi yang jelik sifatnya di aplikasi YouTube pada 16 Jun lalu di tempat yang sama dan melakukan kesalahan mengikut seksyen yang sama. Terdahulu sebelum pertuduhan dimulakan, peguam tertuduh, Ramesh NP Chandran, memohon maaf kepada mahkamah selepas hadir lambat kerana menyelesaikan kes berkait di mahkamah berbeza. Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Mohd Firdaus Mohamed Idris, tidak menawarkan jaminan ke atas tertuduh dan memohon mahkamah menetapkan syarat tambahan iaitu tertuduh perlu menyerahkan pasport, melapor diri di balai polis dan tidak memuat naik kenyataan di media sosial berhubung kes ini. Bagaimanapun, Ramesh membantah dan memohon mahkamah mengenakan jaminan rendah dengan alasan semua kesalahan yang didakwa dilakukan tertuduh boleh dijamin. Hakim membenarkan ikat jamin RM10,000 bagi setiap pertuduhan. Mahkamah menetapkan 1 September ini sebagai tarikh sebutan semula kes.
KUALA LUMPUR: Shortly after she was freed after spending two days in police lock-up, the woman who was charged with insulting Islam in a comedy club, was re-arrested. Nuramira Abdullah, 26, was nabbed by the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) who waited for her at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex as soon as she was released by police today. Clad in a black jacket and yellow shirt, the accused was released at about 10.30am after she posted RM20,000 bail at the Sessions Court yesterday. A Jawi enforcement officer who declined to be named said Nuramira would be brought to Syariah High Court to face charges under Syariah Law tomorrow. "She is expected to be charged under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 for insulting Islam. "The offence carries maximum of two years in prison and RM3,000 fine, upon conviction," the officer said. Counsels Ramesh N. P. Chandran and R. Sivaraj when met confirmed the matter. Nuramira was accused of insulting Islam by admitting she was a Muslim and had memorised 15 juzuk (chapters) of the Quran, before taking off her baju kurung at the Crackhouse Comedy Club in Taman Tun Dr Ismail on June 4. She was charged under Section 298A of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity on grounds of religion. She is facing a maximum of five years' imprisonment if found guilty. The court allowed her RM20,000 bail with one surety and set Aug 18 for her case mention. Separately, V. Alexander Navin, 38, believed to be her boyfriend, faces two counts of improper use of network facilities by making and initiating the transmission of offensive videos on Instagram and YouTube is also expected to be released today.
TELUK INTAN: Seorang Ahli Jawatankuasa Parti Amanah Negara (AMANAH) Perak mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Majistret Teluk Intan, di sini, atas pertuduhan menyebabkan kecederaan terhadap Naib Ketua Wanita AMANAH Kawasan Teluk Intan pada 14 Oktober lalu. Tertuduh, Safarizal Saleh, 43, membuat pengakuan itu selepas pertuduhan dibacakan oleh jurubahasa mahkamah di hadapan Majistret Adilah Mokhtar. Mengikut pertuduhan, tertuduh didapati dengan sengaja menyebabkan kecederaan terhadap Zulaiha Mohd Azam atas bangkitan marah yang besar dan mengejut daripada Zulaiha tanpa maksud hendak menyebabkan kecederaan kepadanya. Tertuduh didakwa melakukan kesalahan itu di Hotel Rivertel, Jalan Changkat Jong, di sini, pada 9.30 malam. Pertuduhan dibuat mengikut Seksyen 334 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara maksimum sebulan atau denda sehingga RM1,000 atau kedua-duanya, jika disabit bersalah. Pendakwaan dikendalikan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya, Cheah Shuh Yuan, manakala tertuduh diwakili peguam, Akhiruddin Mohamad Taib. Mahkamah membenarkan tertuduh diikat jamin RM1,000 dengan seorang penjamin dan kes akan disebut semula pada 20 Oktober ini. Sementara itu, di mahkamah sama, Zulaiha, 32, turut mengaku tidak bersalah atas pertuduhan menggunakan kekerasan jenayah terhadap Safarizal. Mengikut pertuduhan, tertuduh melakukan perbuatan itu di tempat, waktu dan tarikh sama. Pertuduhan dibuat mengikut Seksyen 352 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh dihukum penjara selama tempoh maksimum tiga bulan atau denda maksimum RM1,000 atau kedua-duanya, jika sabit kesalahan. Tertuduh yang diwakili peguam, Tejal Harash, dibenarkan diikat jamin RM1,000 dengan seorang penjamin dan sebutan semula kes pada 20 Oktober ini. Sebelum ini media melaporkan, seorang wanita didakwa ditumbuk, manakala kakaknya dikasari ketika menghadiri satu mesyuarat sebuah parti politik. Mereka mendakwa menerima jemputan menghadiri mesyuarat itu tetapi dihalang masuk ketika tiba di lokasi kejadian sebelum berlaku sedikit kekecohan.
SHAH ALAM - Seorang bekas juruteknik, 48, dibebaskan oleh mahkamah sesyen di sini, semalam atas tuduhan merogol anaknya yang berusia 13 tahun, Oktober lalu.
Hakim Mohammed Mokhzani Mokhtar menjatuhkan hukuman tersebut setelah berpuas hati pihak pendakwaan tiada kes prima facie. “Tertuduh dilepaskan dan dibebaskan tanpa perlu membela diri”, katanya.
Lelaki warga Thailand itu didakwa melakukan perbuatan itu terhadap anak sulungnya, di sebuah rumah di Bukit Rimau, di sini, jam 1 pagi, 24 Oktober.
Pendakwaan diwakili oleh Salwa Asmary Abdul Rahim, manakala Ramesh N P Chandran mewakili anak guamnya. Seramai 10 saksi pendakwaan dipanggil sepanjang perbicaraan kes.
Dia didakwa mengikut Seksyen 376(3) Kanun Keseksaan yang boleh dihukum penjara tidak lebih 30 tahun dan sebatan.
“God is fair (Tuhan adil)”, katanya kepada media sebaik sahaja keluar dari mahkamah. Katanya, dia akan pulang ke Bangkok, Thailand, hari ini untuk berjumpa keluarganya setelah enam bulan di penjara Sungai Buloh.
KUALA LUMPUR - Queen’s Counsel Geoffrey Robertson has applied for admission as an advocate and solicitor to represent Star Papyrus Printing Sdn Bhd in a RM200 million suit filed by tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun.
In his application filed on July 14, Robertson, 53, said he is needed to act as lead counsel in the case as no local lawyer has the necessary expertise, specialization, qualification and experience to handle matters of this nature.
The application, fixed for hearing before Justice Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik today, was postponed to Nov 4. On Monday, the same judge rejected Robertson’s application to act as counsel for Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) correspondent Raphael Pura in four defamation suits against him amounting to RM180 million.
Tan, who is the Berjaya Group chairman and chief executive, filed the libel suit against the AWSJ printer and Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia) Inc. on Jan 30, alleging that he was defamed in an article in the newspaper entitled “Malaysia Props Up Crony Capitalists”, written by economics professor K.S. Jomo and published on Dec 21, last year.
Supporting Robertson’s application, lawyer Bhag Singh said the case involves complicated and serious questions of law. As an eminent barrister, Robertson has extensive experience in handling defamation cases for 25 years and has also litigated some of the leading landmark cases in this field, he added.
Robertson was also lead counsel for former Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib in a prosecution instituted against him by the Australian government for an offence under the Australian Financial Transaction Act.
The Car Council, represented by its secretary Roy Rajasingham, had no objection to the application. In an affidavit-in-reply filed on Sept 27, Ramesh Puranachandran, for Tan, objected to the application, stating that Star Papyrus’ defense of fair comment, justification and qualified privilege are not novel or new defenses in the law of defamation.
He said Robertson is not a fit and proper person to be granted ad hoc admission because of his vicious and scurrilous attacks on the Malaysian judiciary, government and Prime Minister. Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh, who represented the Attorney-Generals’ Chambers, also objected to the application on grounds that foreign expertise is not needed as local lawyers are able to handle such cases.
KUALA LUMPUR - Queen’s Counsel Geoffrey Robertson failed in his application to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on an ad hoc basis. He wanted to act as counsel for Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura in four defamation suits amounting to RM180 million.
High Court judge Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik dismissed the application today on grounds that the issues in all the four cases were not new which require a foreign counsel. Ruling that any of the local lawyers can handle the cases, the judge noted that there was no evidence to show that Robertson was qualified or experienced in handling constitutional matters,
Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who submitted on behalf of Robertson, indicated to the court that he will be appealing against this decision.
Datuk V.K Lingam, Ramesh Chandran and R. Thayalan appeared for the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the four suits while senior federal counsel Datuk Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh represented the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
In his application filed on June 16, Robertson, 53, whose expertise is defamation and media law, said his experience is needed in the four cases which relate to serious issues of this nature. The plaintiffs in the four suits are Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, his two companies Berjaya Industrial Bhd and Berjaya Corporation (Cayman) Ltd, MBf Capital Bhd, MBf Northern Securities Sdn Bhd, lawyer Datuk V.K Lingam, Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd.
They are suing Pura over an article entitled Malaysian Justice on Trial which was published in the November 1995 issue of the International Commercial Litigation magazine.
Shafee, in his affidavit supporting the application, said as an eminent barrister, Robertson has been handling defamation cases for 25 years and has extensive experience in this area. The counsel’s argument was supported by the fact that Robertson has also litigated some of the leading landmark cases in this field and his clients have included all major British newspapers and television companies as well as Cable News Network (CNN) and the Wall Street Journal.
Thayalan, in his affidavit in reply filed on Aug 23, objected to the application, stating that Pura’s defense of fair comment, justification and qualified privilege are not novel or new defenses in the law of defamation. “The defamation suit is a simple and straight forward case and does not raise any complicated and unique points of law bearing a constitutional dimension”, he said.
Thayalan said that Robertson has denigrated, scandalized and ridiculed the Malaysian judiciary and government internationally by writing an article headlined Justice Hangs in the Balance, published in the Observer newspaper in London on Aug 28 1988. The same article, which condemns the Malaysian judiciary, government and the Prime Minister, was also republished locally in the Aliran Volume 8.6.1988.
Thayalan said Robertson is not a fit and proper person to be granted ad hoc admission to act as lead counsel because of his vicious and scurrilous attacks on the Malaysian judiciary, government and Prime Minister.
Kuala Lumpur - Two companies suing an Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent for libel are now also filing an application against a local reporter for contempt.
Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd are initiating the move against Shaila Koshy for writing on an issue yet to be heard and decided by the court, in their RM40 million libel suit against correspondent Raphael Pura.
Datuk V.K. Lingam, accompanied by R. Thayalan, Peter Raj and Ramesh N P Chandran, gave notice that they will file the show cause papers on Monday. Lingam, who raised the issue before the court could hear Pura’s application to amend his statement of defence, pointed out Shaila’s report in yesterday’s issue of the Star.
“The article makes reference to a document filed by the defendant which is a proposed amended defense”, said Lingam. This application itself has not been heard yet, he added. He said the words in Shaila’s article - “in the amended statement” - give the impression that the amendment had already been allowed, when the hearing is actually fixed for today.
“This is an attempt to prejudge this case and the decision of this court”. Lingam also told the court that he has a witness who heard Pura’s counsel, Cecil Abraham, telling reporters outside the courtroom that he will see them in his office regarding the case. “In our clients’ view, this article constitutes a contempt of court”, he added. On Monday, Nathan rejected Pura’s application to disqualify him from hearing the matter.
Kuala Lumpur - A 36 year old investor who sued his lawyer for holding his RM1.6 million in trust succeeded in getting a court order compelling the latter to return the money with interests.
High Court Judge Datin Zabariah Mohd Yusof also ordered the defendant Datuk Sin Yoong Min, to pay RM30,000 in costs to Lew Ban Kin over money which was allegedly paid in April last year to him for securing gaming licences to open Magnum 4D, Da Ma Cai 1+ 3D and Sports Toto outlets. Lew later decided not to go ahead with the deal because Sin had tied him down with a consultancy agreement, dated April 12, 2010.
He said he never agreed to any of the terms of the agreement, nor did he read or see the agreement. Lew, through his newly appointed lawyer Ramesh N P Chandran, then sent letters to Sin asking for the money to be returned. However, the defendant refused to pay up.
Lew also asked the defendant to show proof that the money was still in the client’s account but the defendant did not do so. Lew claimed the RM1.6 million was not only his, but also belonged to other investors. But the defendant still did not return it.
The plaintiff then lodged a police report on Nov 3 last year. In his defence, Sin denied holding the money in trust, claiming that the money was held by a consultant lawyer.
Ramesh told reporters yesterday that the judge, who delivered her decision in chambers, had concluded from the evidence produced that the consultancy agreement was a sham. She also found there were too many discrepancies in the defendant’s testimony and deemed he was not a credible witness.
Kuala Lumpur - The High Court yesterday fixed Nov 22, to hear UN Special Rapporteur Datuk Param Cumaraswamy’s appeal against a senior assistant registrar’s decision to not strike out a RM60mil defamation suit against him by two companies over an article published in a foreign magazine.
Senior assistant registrar Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, who on Oct 18 dismissed Param’s application with costs, fixed the appeal date to be heard before a judge in chambers.
S. Ashokvijay and Ramesh N P Chandran appeared for Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nomineed Tempatan Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Megapolitan Nomineed Sdn Bhd) and Trevor George de Silva represented Param.
In the suit which was served on Param on Nov 21, 1997, the companies claimed that Param had defamed them in the article published in the November 1995 issue if the International Commercial Litigation magazine.
Insas and Megapolitan claimed that Param had spoken to David Samuels, a staff writer of the magazine. The companies claimed that Param spoke to Samuels between Sept and Nov 1995, on alleged corruption of the Malaysian judiciary by them and their lawyer, Datuk v. Kanagalingam.
Kuala Lumpur - The High Court dismissed yesterday an application by Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura to have a Queen’s Counsel lead his defence team in four defamation suits totaling RM180 mil against him.
Justice Faiza Tamby Chik rejected the application to have Geoffrey Robertson as the QC after hearing submissions from Pura’s counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.
Pura is currently facing suits from Tan Sri Vincent Tan and his companies, two MBf companies, lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam and Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd over an article, “Malaysian Justice on Trial,” which appeared in the November issue of the International Commercial Litigation magazine.
Muhammad Shafee said he would appeal against the decision. Datuk V.K. Lingam, Ramesh N P Candran and R. Thayalan appeared for the respondents while Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh appeared for the Attorney Genaral’s Chambers.
Justice Faiza, in rejecting the application, said the case was not new and could be handled by local lawyers.
He said there was no evidence to show that Robertson was capable of or had the experience to deal with local constitutional matters.
The application in the form of an originating motion was filed on June 16 and supported by an affidavit dated June 15, affirmed by Muhammad Shafee.
In the 15- page affidavit, Muhammad Shafee said the suits involved complicated and serious questions concerning defamation law.
In his submissions, he said that Robertson, who had consented to appear on an ad hoc basis, was an eminent counsel in the Commonwealth and had no equal in Malaysia.
To this, the judge told him that there were no submissions to say that the 9000- odd Bar Council members did not have the qualifications Robertson possessed.
Muhammad Shafee replied that Robertson had vast experience in defamation suits which local lawyers did not possess and no one could argue a case like he could.
Zaitun submitted that there was no need to have Robertson on an ad hoc basis but his advice could be sought instead.
She said that after 42 years of independence, there were local lawyers who were as good as Robertson and this was obvious in recent cases and there was no proof to show that the QC was competent or had submitted on the Malaysian Constitution.
Zaitun added that local lawyers with similar qualifications must be sought first and efforts must prove futile before Robertson could appear on an ad hoc basis.
SHAH ALAM - Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) mengemukakan injunksi terhadap Shaklee Products (M) Sdn Bhd bagi menghalang syarikat itu daripada menerbitkan perkataan halal yang disahkan majlis itu.
Injunksi itu difailkan peguam Ramesh N P Chandran, di Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam, Khamis lalu, menuntut sumber gelatin daging dalam kapsul gelatin yang dibekalkan, dipromosi dan dijual Shaklee tidak disahkan halal oleh Plaintif.
Plaintif juga menuntut pengisytiharan bahawa gelatin yang dibekalkan untuk pengeluaran kapsul itu tidak disahkan halal oleh Plaintif. Plaintif juga menuntut injunksi menghalang Defendan dan pekerja daripada menerbitkan dalam sebarang cara atau menerbitkan dalam Shaklee Today perkataan berikut, “halal…kapsul gelatin (sumber gelatin- daging) adalah halal dan Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America mengesahkan gelatin yang dibekalkan untuk pengeluaran kapsul Shaklee halal.
Dalam affidavit sokongan Plaintif, Abdullah Fahim Abdul Rahman, wakil Asia Tenggara bagi IFANCA, mendakwa pada Januari/ Februari 2001, defendan telah menerbitkan secara palsu dalam bulletin Shaklee Today kenyataan yang mengelirukan, ‘halal’, kapsul gelatin (sumber gelatin-daging) adalah halal, IFANCA telah mengesahkan bahawa gelatin yang dibekalkan untuk kapsul Shaklee adalah halal.
Abdullah Fahim mendakwa sumber gelatin daging kapsul gelatin adalah tidak halal dan organisasi itu tidak pernah mengesahkan atau memberi kuasa kepada pengesahan kapsul gelatin yang dibekalkan untuk Shaklee adalah halal.
Kuala Lumpu – Peguam Negara membantah permohonan Peguam Diraja Geoffrey Robertson untuk diterima masuk menjadi peguam cara dan peguam bela bagi membela Star Papyrus Printing Sdn Bhd yang menghadapi saman malu RM 200 juta daripada Tan Sri Vincent Tan.
Bantahan itu dikemukakan menerusi Peguam Kanan Persekutuan, Datuk Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh pada 20 September lalu dan mahkamah menetapkan pada 4 November ini untuk perbicaraan.
Dalam afidavitnya, Zaitun berkatan saman malu tidak membabitkan isu fitnah yang baru dan rumit sehingga memerlukan perkhidmatan Robertson. Katanya, peguam cara dan peguam bela tempatan boleh mengendalikan kes itu kerana pembelaan yang dikemukakan oleh Star Papyrus (defendan) adalah pembelaan wajar, ulasan berpatutan dan perlindungan bersyarat.
Zaitun berkatan, affidavit yang dikemukakan oleh peguam bela defenda, Bhag Singh bagi menyokong permohonn Robertson tidak menyatakna dengan terpeinci apakah persoalan berat serta rumit dalam undang-undang fitnah sehingga peguam tempatan tidak boleh mengandalikannya. Beliau berkata, Robertson tidak menunjukkan kelayakan atau pengalaman istimewa mengenai guaman sivil fitnah yang tidak terdapat di kalangan peguam tempatan.
Dalam permohonan Robertson yang dikemukakan menerusi Bhag Sulaiman & Co, Bhag berkata kes itu membabitkan persoalan undang-undang yang berat dan rumit khususnya undang-undang fitnah.
Bhag berkata, anak guamannya mengarahkan untuk mendapatkan perkhidmatan Robertson yang mampu mempunyai pengkhususan dan kepakaran dalam bidang undang-undang fitnah dan media.
Katanya, peguam tempatan tidak mempunyai kepakaran dan kelayakan untuk mengendalikan kes yang rumit dan berat itu.
Peguam bela Tan, P Ramesh dalam affidavitnya membantah permohonan itu dengan alasan kes fitnah adalah satu kes yang mudah dan tidak menimbulkan perkara rumit.
Katanya, kepakaran dan kelayakan Robertson tidak diperlukan malah latar belakang beliau yang pernah membidas serta merendahkan kerajaan perlu diambil kira.
Ramesh berkata, Robertson pernah menulis artikel bertajuk “Justice Hangs In the Balance” dalam akhbar The Observer London pada 28 Ogos 1988 untuk mengutuk badan kehakiman Malaysia, kerajaan dan Perdana Menteri.
Setiausaha Majlis Peguam, Roy Rajasingham bagi pihak majlis itu menyokonh permohonan Robertson berdasarkan kepada pengalaman dari kelayakannya dalam undang –undang fitnah.
Pada Januari lalu, Tan mengemukakan saman malu menuntut ganti rugi RM200 juta daripada defendan berhubung artikel bertajuk “Malaysia Props Up Crony Capitals” yang dicetak oleh syarikat itu.
KUALA LUMPUR: A High Court here has granted a deputy minister an ex-parte injunction to stop another deputy minister from uttering and publishing slanderous words against him.
Datuk S. Sothinathan, of the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, was granted the injunction against Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk M. Kayveas in connection with a RM20mil suit. High Court Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat gave the order in her chambers yesterday.
Sothinathan, 47, also obtained an ex-parte injunction to stop Kayveas, via his workers, agents or representatives, from disobeying the tort of conspiracy (which requires proof of an intention to cause injury) that would affect his good name and reputation.
Lawyers R. Thayakughan and Ramesh N P Chandran represented Sothinathan. Justice Tengku Maimun set Nov 20 to hear an application by Sothinathan for an inter-parte injunction concerning the suit.
The deputy minister had filed a RM20mil defamation suit against Kayveas on Oct 17 as well as against Malaysia Nanban reporter R.P.K. Murugayah, the daily’s owner Penerbitan Sahabat (M) Sdn Bhd and printer Summit Print Sdn Bhd. He is asking for an injunction to stop them from uttering and publishing any defamatory words against him in any manner. He is seeking RM10mil that includes exemplary damages for slander and another RM10mil for libel over the article published in the paper.
The Teluk Kemang MP is also seeking other costs and relief deemed fit by the court.
In his statement of claim, Sothinathan, an MIC vice-president, said Kayveas, president of the People's Progressive Party, had given a speech on Oct 9 which had slanderous words touching on his political career and conduct. Sothinathan claimed that the Tamil daily had published the speech on its front page.
