The Federal Court has rescheduled the appeal by veteran journalist MGG Pillai against a RM2 million defamation award he was ordered to pay business tycoon Vincent Tan.

The appeal was taken off the court's list of cases last week at the appellant's request but no new date has been given.

When contacted, Pillai said he had to request for the postponement because his lawyer is out of town.

The new appeal follows the success of Pillai's landmark application last year to the Federal Court to review its previous decision in dismissing his appeal.

A newly constituted three-member Federal Court panel will hear the fresh appeal, but details are not available o­n who will be sitting o n the panel. The date was confirmed by both Pillai and the Federal Court registry.

Unprecedented application

On May 16, the Federal Court, in a two to o ne decision, allowed the application by Pillai to set aside the judgment made by the court's previous panel presided by then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin.

The majority decision was made by Federal Court judges Haidar Mohamed Noor and Siti Norma Yaacob while Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Steve Shim, who led the panel, dissented.

In his application, Pillai had applied to set aside the Federal Court judgment dated July 12, 2000 affirming a High Court order, compelling him to pay the RM2 million in damages to Tan.

Pillai's application was unprecedented as previously there are no appeals against the decision of the Federal Court, the highest court in the country.

His ground for the review was based o­n the claims that the Federal Court, which heard his appeal in 1998, could have acted in bias following a known friendship between Eusoff and counsel V K Lingam who acted for Tan.

He had also complained that when the Federal Court released its written judgment in 2000 two years after the case was heard it was done after the retirement of justice Chong Siew Fai, who was in the original panel.

In her judgment, Siti Norma said Eusoff's decision o n June 12, 2000 was delivered in breach of Pillai's substantive right to consent to the judgment being delivered by two remaining judges since Chong had already retired.

She however said that the issue of alleged bias by Eusoff merited no consideration from the court in making its decision.

Consent needed

This view was supported by Haidar who said that Eusoff's judgment was defective as Section 78 of the Court of Judicature Act states that the court must have the consent of both parties to give judgment in the absence of o ne of the judges.

The High Court in 1994 found Pillai liable for defaming Tan in an article which he wrote for the Malaysian Industry magazine.

Pillai and several other defendants were ordered to pay Tan damages amounting to RM10 million (Pillai's share was RM2 million). The other defendants had paid the damages.

Pillai's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in 1995.