SC probe: Star, editor withdraw leave application
Published: Jul 8, 2010 8:54 AM | Updated: Jul 8, 2010 8:54 AM
The Star newspaper and its deputy business editor BK Sidhu today withdrew their leave application for a judicial review challenging a Securities Commission (SC) notice for their lawyer to be present at the commission for an investigation.
Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Zawawi Salleh granted the withdrawal application with no order as to legal costs.
The Star newspaper and its deputy business editor BK Sidhu today withdrew their leave application for a judicial review challenging a Securities Commission (SC) notice for their lawyer to be present at the commission for an investigation.
Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Zawawi Salleh granted the withdrawal application with no order as to legal costs.
There was no reason for the withdrawal application, their lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad told reporters.
Today, the court was set to hear the leave application, which was filed on July 1.
On the same day, they were also granted an interim order by the High Court for a stay of the notice pending the outcome of their leave application.
The journalist was called up by the SC over her report on financially-troubled Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd.
The English daily and Sidhu, whose full name is Berjan Kaur, named the SC and its investigation officer Arif Adnan Zain as the first and second respondents.
In the leave application, they said Sidhu was requested by the SC to present herself at its premises on June 26 to assist in an investigation for an offence under the Securities Commission Act 1993.
She was asked to go again on June 29 and she brought lawyer Tharminder Singh but he was only allowed as an observer and not allowed to advise or interject during the recording of a statement from Sidhu.
Sidhu was denied a copy of the statement and Tharminder Singh was allegedly intimidated by the investigation officer and was served with a notice by hand on June 29 to have his statement recorded today.
They alleged that the SC had so far not disclosed the nature of the investigation and had failed to respond to their counsel's letter to retract the June 29 notice.
They want a declaration that SC does not have the power to impose restrictions on a counsel's role or to insist on any statement from counsel as well as to compel any advocate and solicitor to disclose privileged information.
They also want the June 29 notice to be declared vague, ineffective, an abuse of process and ultra vires the Securities Commission Act 1993.
- Bernama
Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Zawawi Salleh granted the withdrawal application with no order as to legal costs.
There was no reason for the withdrawal application, their lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad told reporters.
Today, the court was set to hear the leave application, which was filed on July 1.
On the same day, they were also granted an interim order by the High Court for a stay of the notice pending the outcome of their leave application.
The journalist was called up by the SC over her report on financially-troubled Kenmark Industrial Co (M) Bhd.
The English daily and Sidhu, whose full name is Berjan Kaur, named the SC and its investigation officer Arif Adnan Zain as the first and second respondents.
In the leave application, they said Sidhu was requested by the SC to present herself at its premises on June 26 to assist in an investigation for an offence under the Securities Commission Act 1993.
She was asked to go again on June 29 and she brought lawyer Tharminder Singh but he was only allowed as an observer and not allowed to advise or interject during the recording of a statement from Sidhu.
Sidhu was denied a copy of the statement and Tharminder Singh was allegedly intimidated by the investigation officer and was served with a notice by hand on June 29 to have his statement recorded today.
They alleged that the SC had so far not disclosed the nature of the investigation and had failed to respond to their counsel's letter to retract the June 29 notice.
They want a declaration that SC does not have the power to impose restrictions on a counsel's role or to insist on any statement from counsel as well as to compel any advocate and solicitor to disclose privileged information.
They also want the June 29 notice to be declared vague, ineffective, an abuse of process and ultra vires the Securities Commission Act 1993.
- Bernama
View Comments0