Skip to content
Menu
Wee Choo Keong
  • Home
  • Discussion
  • Parliament
  • About Me
  • Complaints for DBKL
  • Festive Wishes
Wee Choo Keong

Why filed RM100 million mega defamation suit against the Rules of Court?

Posted on April 1, 2013
The RM100 million mega defamation suit filed.
The RM100 million mega defamation suit filed.

The Bar Council president, Mr Christopher Leong said it was good not to allow the plaintiff in such cases to quantity the amount of damages.  “When the plaintiff quantifies the damages in a manner wholly excessive in the statement of claim, it may be oppressive against the defendant and may become an instrument to threaten the defendants. You don’t use your action as a way to threaten the defendant”, he was quoted to have said in the Star HERE.

We hope that after the above statement from Bar Council president, the filing of mega defamation suit will be stopped.

Presumably the above statement was made in respond to yours truly posting entitled “If you “Ulang” can I “Saman” you with a RM100 million suit?”.  Of course, there was no mention of this. It may just be a coincidence for all we know.

In January 2013 the learned judge, YA Datuk V T Singham, who presided over the case of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (DSAI) v Utusan Malaysia where DSAI quantified his claim for RM50 million.  The learned Judge found Utusan liable but did not grant the award of RM50 million as claimed . The learned Judge ordered for the damages to be assessed by the Court in HERE.

Lawyers Mr N Surendran, who is also the vice-president of PKR, and Ms Latheefa Koya, who is a member of PKR,  represented DSAI in the above defamation suit.

This was a clear precedent that the Court will decide on the award for general damages and that the litigant has no right to quantify the amount of general damages.

Yours truly believes that there was no appeal against the learned Judge’s decision in ordering for the general damages to be assessed.

It was clearly stated under Order 18 Rule 12 (1A) of the Rules of Court 2012 that “No party shall quantify any claim or counter claim for general damages”. 

Despite the above decision and the said Order 18 Rule 12 (1A), the lawyer concerned saw it fit to repeteadly filed several mega defamation suits against Utusan Malaysia and TV3 for RM100 million.

January 2012  lawyers Mr N Surendran, who is also vice president of PKR, and Latheefa Koya, a member of PKR, represented DSAI by filing another mega defamation suit of RM100 million against Utusan and TV 3 where DSAI contended that the words published in the media have implied that “he was unfit to hold public office and a Muslim leader who held views inconsistent with the teachings of Islam”.

March 2012 the same two PKR lawyers filed another RM100 million mega defamation suit against Utusan and TV3 accusing them implying that “DSAI was behind the on-going crisis in Lahad Datu” in HERE.

On 21 March 2013 the same Mr N Surendran has filed another RM100 million mega defamation suit against blogger Papa Gomo over a recent sex video allegedly implicating the Opposition Leader, DSAI. But the suit was filed against Wan Muhammad Azri Wan Deris, who has since denied that he was the person blogging under the name of Papa Gomo in HERE.

Why was there a need to file a mega suit claiming to the tune of RM100 million when Order 18 Rule 12 (1A) clearly prohibited it?  Was it a case of trying to thwart freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 10 of our Federal Constitution? Or was it an exercise done to sensationalise and/or politicise the suit as a mean to divert public attention from what have been published?

Yours truly leaves it to the readers to judge.

In any event, Defendant faced with mega suits involving defamation could instruct his or her lawyer to file an application to strike out the suit for non-compliance of the said Order 18 Rule 12 (1A). The Court may not strike the whole suit but it will definitely strike out the amount claimed.

Defamation action is a double edged sword

The character of the Plaintiff will be revealed in a defamation suit
The character of the Plaintiff will be revealed in a defamation suit

Yours truly would like to remind potential litigant who is mindful of filing mega defamation suit to clear their name or for political purposes that defamation suit is also a double edged swords where it may clear the plaintiff’s name or hurt the plaintiff’s reputation further even if he or she were to win in court.  The reason being that the character and the past of the Plaintiff will be thoroughly ventilated during the trial.

The movie QB VII based on the famous defamation suit where the plaintiff was awarded with half Penny in the UK.
The movie QB VII based on the famous defamation suit where the plaintiff was awarded with half Penny in the UK.

There was a classic defamation case of Dering v Leon Uris which was heard in the High Court in England in 1964 which case arose from the book EXODUS written by Mr Leon Uris. The Court found in favour of the plaintiff  but he was only awarded the sum of one half Penny which is the smallest denomination in the English currency. During the trial the plaintiff’s past was revealed and closely scrutinized in the court. This case made big headlines in UK and it was later made into movie called QB VII, in HERE.

Defamation actions may not be a good idea to embark on especially when the plaintiff is a public figure. The publicity that generates from a defamation action in court can create a bigger audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. During the trial many things will be revealed before the court where the mass media can publish freely what have been revealed which will be suddenly known to the entire nation or even the whole world.

More often than not that the mass media are more interested in covering the specific details revealed during the trial than the ultimate resolution of it.  May be this may also be the reason why defamation action was settled before trial begins or after a few days of trial.

It is hoped that the case of Dering v Leon in 1964 made famous by QB VII will be a lesson to all potential litigants in rushing into filing of a defamation action.

Related

6 thoughts on “Why filed RM100 million mega defamation suit against the Rules of Court?”

  1. Keng Lee says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Thank you for an informative and educational article. This is what MP should do.

    Reply
  2. AnwarIsTamil says:
    April 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Anwar is Tamil, Surendran is Tamil, enuf said.

    these Indians like to belit-belit like Mahathir.

    Reply
  3. gormlesspap says:
    April 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm

    YB Wee

    We have been taught to believe that “the truth will set you free”.

    If that’s the case (pun intended), why should those who sue on grounds of defamation be afraid about what will be revealed in court proceedings?

    Reply
    1. weechookeong says:
      April 2, 2013 at 6:43 pm

      gormlesspap

      “… those who sue on grounds of defamation be afraid about what will be revealed in court proceedings?” We have heard cases where defamation suit being withdrawn before the trial starts or half way through.

      Thank you

      With kindest regards

      wee choo keong

      Reply
  4. harkis says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    Why not in a democratic country. U are like asking those gays and lesbians why they want to legalise their marriage?

    Reply
  5. Anonymous says:
    April 6, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    . Argentina. Memang pendidkan di negara berkenaan percuma dan terbuka kepada sesiapa sahaja. Tetapi, terdapat banyak kos tersembunyi di negara berkeaan seperti pelajar harus membayar kos pengakutan dan pelbagai kos-kos lain yang mengarut. Pemberian biasiswa di negara berkenaan yang tidak sama rata sebenarnya telah mengabaikan golongan yang berpendidikan rendah untuk masuk ke dalam universiti. 9 daripada 10 pelajar yang memasuki universiti di Argentina datang daripada golongan kaya.

    2. Negara dunia ketiga seperti Sri Lanka dan Mauritius mengamalkan pendidikan percuma?

    Sebelum nak bercakap mengenai Sri Lanka, fahamkan dulu sistem pendidikan mereka. Hanya 10 peratus sahaja mereka yang layak memasuki university, selebihnya akan terpiggir. Inilah harganya yang perlu dibayar. Mengenai soal Mauritius, hanya orang bodoh sahaja yang membandingkan Malaysia dengan Mauritius. 1,286,340 merupakan jumlah rakyat di sana. Negara mereka pula kecil dan pengajian swasta cuma menjalankan kelas pada hari minggu sahaja memandangkan jumlah pelajar di sana sangat kecil. Jadi, buat apa nak bandingkan epal dengan durian? Sangat tidak adil bukan?

    3. Brazil. Ya, pendidikan mereka percuma, tetapi, nah, ambil ni:

    “Brazil is known for charging a high tax burden from its citizens and companies established. We will provide an overview of the most common taxes in Brazil, dividing them into Federal, State and Municipal taxes.” Rujuk link pada komen saya dibawah.

    ” Everyday taxes in Brazil: IPVA, IPTU and IPTR!”

    4. Bandingkan dengan negara kaya pula? Berapa kerat negara kaya yang ada sistem pendidikan percuma? Denmark? Kadar cukai di negara berkenaan merupakan yang paling tinggi di dunia. Kita perlu bayar untuk sesuatu yang percuma.

    5. Turki? Sistem pendidikan negara kita tak ubah macam negara mereka.Turki hanya menawarkan pendidikan percuma pada peringkat sekolah rendah dan menengah daripada gred 1 sehinggalah 12. Serupa dengan negara kita, pendidikan percuma di Malaysia ditawarkan daripada darjah satu sehinggalah ke tingkatan 6 sebenarnya. Dan Malaysia hanya mengenakan 10% bayaran untuk pendidikan tertiaty (universiti, kolej) dengan 90% disubsidi kerajaan.

    6. Finland? Saya dah cakap, jangan buat perbandingan epal dan durian. Kita buat sedikit analisis pasal negara Finland. Finland mempunyai 169, 000 orang pelajar dan Malaysia mempunyai 508,256 pelajar yang belajar di IPTA (IPTA sahaja, tidak termasuk IPTS lagi). Malaysia sebenarnya memberikan subsidi sebanyak 95 % daripada yuran pengajian sebenar di IPTA. Pelajar hanya membayar 5 % sahaja. Cukai pendapatan di Finland mencecah 50 peratus ke atas manakala Malaysia hanyalah mencecah 26 peratus maksimun. Dan, kenapa tergamak kalian bandingkan epal dan durian?

    Negara-negara yang dibangkitkan oleh Bawini sebenarnya kaya dengan inflasi. Ambil contoh Argentina sudah cukup. 38 peratus inflasi untuk 2 tahun kebelakangan ini. Barang naik sikit kat Malaysia pun dah bising, dan hanya kerana pendidikan percuma, apakah sudah bersedia rakyat Malaysia untuk menghadapi cukai yang tinggi?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Old Blog Stats
5,037,921 hits

New Site Statistics
  • Total page views: 57,210

Recent Posts

  • Police Report Lodged Against Siew Ka Wei’s Staff Elizabeth Ken
  • Press Release On Criminal Defamation Report By Former MACC Detainee Sweeties Elizabeth Ken
  • Geeko 2.0 : A Troubling Reemergence Of An Insolvent BXC Travellers In MAHB?
  • Recap Geeko 1.0 & Emergence Of Geeko 2.0 (MAHB – BXC)
  • Temu Ramah dengan Sin Chew Daily pada 16.11.2022/Interview with Sin Chew Daily

Recent Comments

  1. Special Pussy on Geeko 2.0 : A Troubling Reemergence Of An Insolvent BXC Travellers In MAHB?
  2. Joe Chin on Press Release On Criminal Defamation Report By Former MACC Detainee Sweeties Elizabeth Ken
  3. Leong on Press Release On Criminal Defamation Report By Former MACC Detainee Sweeties Elizabeth Ken
  4. Shameless Elly on Geeko 2.0 : A Troubling Reemergence Of An Insolvent BXC Travellers In MAHB?
  5. Kamarul Former Tourism Malaysia on Geeko 2.0 : A Troubling Reemergence Of An Insolvent BXC Travellers In MAHB?

Archives

  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • November 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • June 2017
  • January 2017
  • October 2016
  • July 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008

Categories

  • Uncategorized
  • wangsa maju
  • wee choo keong

Site Admin

Log in
©2023 Wee Choo Keong | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com