“In my judgment the so-called ‘Federal Court’ was not a legally constituted court under the law and the Constitution," High Court Judge Hishamuddin said.
What? The Federal Court in the case of Ayer Molek vs Insas wasn't constituted in accordance with the constitution?
This will open up cans of worms?
Read this:
International Commercial Litigation Magazine (ICL), a London-based magazine did not defame lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam in a 1995 article, about him having corrupted or attempting to corrupt the Malaysian judiciary, as the write-up was based on a Court of Appeal judgment.
High Court judge Justice Hishamudin Yunus’ main grounds for dismissing a RM100mil defamation suit Lingam filed against ICL staff writer David Samuels, editor Joff Wild, editorial publisher Robert Menzies Walker and owner Euromoney Publications PLC.
Hishamuddin said it was Lingam’s own wrongful conduct in the Ayer Molek case that had led to the publication of the article entitled “Malaysian Justice On Trial” in ICL’s November 1995 issue.
“There is the common law principle that a person cannot bring an action based on his own wrong,” he said in his written judgment.
“That the plaintiff (Lingam) is guilty of wrongdoings, namely, abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants before the High Court in the Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd case, is clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case, which is the main subject of the article.”
He added that in order to appreciate the article and the legal implications, one must know the facts of the Ayer Molek case, which was set out in the 1995 Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Justice N.H. Chan.
The judgment by Justice Chan, who has since retired, was essentially about Lingam obtaining for his clients an ex parte order from a High Court to compel Ayer Molek to register a substantial block of Ayer Molek shares that the clients had bought.
Justice Hishamudin said that Justice Chan had severely criticised Lingam’s conduct in obtaining the order and found the latter guilty of “abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants in the case.”
“The Court of Appeal concluded its judgment by further criticising the plaintiff (Lingam),” Justice Hishamudin said.
“The chiding remarks concerned his conduct as solicitor for the plaintiffs in the Ayer Molek case in filing the action in the appellate and special powers division of the High Court instead of the commercial division.
“Such a course of action might give the impression to right-thinking people that he was choosing the judge.”
Justice Chan had in his judgment referred to this issue by saying that such observations were made so that people would not say “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.’’
Justice Hishamudin said that the quotation above was meant as a pun because the High Court then was located in Denmark House in Jalan Ampang here.
He added that he had not been persuaded by Lingam’s contention that those remarks in the Court of Appeal judgment had been expunged by the Federal Court 17 days later.
“In my judgment the so-called ‘Federal Court’ was not a legally constituted court under the law and the Constitution.
He said the Federal Court panel that heard the leave application in the Ayer Molek case comprised only “two legally competent judges, namely, the then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and then Court of Appeal judge Datuk Dr Zakaria Yatim.
The third judge on the panel, Datuk Pajan Singh Gill, he said, was not legally competent to sit on a Federal Court panel as he was only a High Court judge then.
“The panel therefore cannot stay, criticise or expunge the Court of Appeal judgment. I shall just ignore the judgment of the unlawful panel,” Justice Hishamudin said.
Lingam, when approached later, said he would appeal against the decision.
His counsel Datuk V. Sithambaram said a notice of appeal would be filed on Monday. He has a month to file it.
What? The Federal Court in the case of Ayer Molek vs Insas wasn't constituted in accordance with the constitution?
This will open up cans of worms?
Read this:
International Commercial Litigation Magazine (ICL), a London-based magazine did not defame lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam in a 1995 article, about him having corrupted or attempting to corrupt the Malaysian judiciary, as the write-up was based on a Court of Appeal judgment.
High Court judge Justice Hishamudin Yunus’ main grounds for dismissing a RM100mil defamation suit Lingam filed against ICL staff writer David Samuels, editor Joff Wild, editorial publisher Robert Menzies Walker and owner Euromoney Publications PLC.
Hishamuddin said it was Lingam’s own wrongful conduct in the Ayer Molek case that had led to the publication of the article entitled “Malaysian Justice On Trial” in ICL’s November 1995 issue.
“There is the common law principle that a person cannot bring an action based on his own wrong,” he said in his written judgment.
“That the plaintiff (Lingam) is guilty of wrongdoings, namely, abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants before the High Court in the Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd case, is clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case, which is the main subject of the article.”
He added that in order to appreciate the article and the legal implications, one must know the facts of the Ayer Molek case, which was set out in the 1995 Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Justice N.H. Chan.
The judgment by Justice Chan, who has since retired, was essentially about Lingam obtaining for his clients an ex parte order from a High Court to compel Ayer Molek to register a substantial block of Ayer Molek shares that the clients had bought.
Justice Hishamudin said that Justice Chan had severely criticised Lingam’s conduct in obtaining the order and found the latter guilty of “abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants in the case.”
“The Court of Appeal concluded its judgment by further criticising the plaintiff (Lingam),” Justice Hishamudin said.
“The chiding remarks concerned his conduct as solicitor for the plaintiffs in the Ayer Molek case in filing the action in the appellate and special powers division of the High Court instead of the commercial division.
“Such a course of action might give the impression to right-thinking people that he was choosing the judge.”
Justice Chan had in his judgment referred to this issue by saying that such observations were made so that people would not say “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.’’
Justice Hishamudin said that the quotation above was meant as a pun because the High Court then was located in Denmark House in Jalan Ampang here.
He added that he had not been persuaded by Lingam’s contention that those remarks in the Court of Appeal judgment had been expunged by the Federal Court 17 days later.
“In my judgment the so-called ‘Federal Court’ was not a legally constituted court under the law and the Constitution.
He said the Federal Court panel that heard the leave application in the Ayer Molek case comprised only “two legally competent judges, namely, the then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and then Court of Appeal judge Datuk Dr Zakaria Yatim.
The third judge on the panel, Datuk Pajan Singh Gill, he said, was not legally competent to sit on a Federal Court panel as he was only a High Court judge then.
“The panel therefore cannot stay, criticise or expunge the Court of Appeal judgment. I shall just ignore the judgment of the unlawful panel,” Justice Hishamudin said.
Lingam, when approached later, said he would appeal against the decision.
His counsel Datuk V. Sithambaram said a notice of appeal would be filed on Monday. He has a month to file it.
1 comment:
mave:
the cans of worms are old cans, olde worms.
They need a decent burial -- so let's exhume them first.
no worries -- we are seeing the Mr Nic Guy restoring the 3rd Estate to its deserved position of elevation to check the other non-performing Estates.
A good -- maybe belated start -- to Mr Elegant Silence, don't youn think? And that's a Rhetorical Q!
Post a Comment