Lingam faces contempt over plagiarism accusation
Nigel AwPublished: Aug 23, 2013 3:51 AM | Updated: Aug 23, 2013 9:14 AM
Lawyer VK Lingam and 24 others will face contempt of court proceedings after they accused the apex court of plagiarism.
Lawyer VK Lingam and 24 others will face contempt of court proceedings after they accused the apex court of plagiarism.
The Federal Court today allowed the proceedings and dismissed Lingam’s application to strike out the application to cite him and his clients for contempt.
In a unanimous decision, the five-man Federal Court panel led by Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar ruled that there was a prima facie case to cite them for contempt.
“We find no procedural error in the obtaining of leave (for contempt of court proceedings) and are satisfied that prima facie was established against all contempters.
“Therefore, we dismiss all setting-aside applications with costs,” Justice Suriyadi said.
Also on the bench were Federal Court judges Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha.
They also allowed the respondents' request for case management but said the date would be decided by the court registrar.
The application to cite the respondents for contempt was brought by liquidators Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck.
The tussle of Lingam and the 24 others versus Ooi and Ng began after a three-man Federal Court panel led by Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin delivered their decision in a commercial dispute on Jan 5, 2012.
The dispute concerns an attempt by then Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd (KJCF) managing director See Teow Chuan and 23 other majority and minority contributories of the company to block Can-One International from acquiring a 32.9 percent stake in KJCF which was wound up.
Ooi and Ng, who were the liquidators overseeing the winding-up, had granted the acquisition tender to Can-One International.
Zulkefli’s panel, which also comprised Federal Court judges Mohd Ghazali Yusoff and James Foong (retired), had decided in favour of Ooi and Ng.
The decision upheld an earlier decision by the High Court and reversed the Court of Appeal decision which was in favour of See and the contributories.
However, on Feb 21, 2012, Lingam, representing See, filed a review application of the Federal Court’s decision, citing plagiarism in its written judgement.
Also party to the application were 12 majority contributories and another 11 minority contributories of KJCF.
‘Substantial copying’
The applicants said that a substantial part of the written judgement was taken wholesale from the written submissions of counsel for Ooi and Ng.
They contended that there were legitimate concerns about miscarriage of justice as the judges could not have applied their own reasoning when they relied substantially on the respondents’ submissions.
A Federal Court panel of five judges led by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria and including Court of Appeal president Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Abdull Hamid Embong and Zainun Ali, was convened to hear the application.
In their decision on May 22 this year, they noted that Zulkefli’s panel had only adopted 70 out of 189 paragraphs of the submissions and there was nothing wrong about the adoption if it accurately reflected the judges’ own analysis.
As such, Ariffin’s panel dismissed the review application but noted that the panel discouraged such practices by judges as it would give rise to negative perception.
Following this, Ooi and Ng filed an application to cite Lingam and his clients for contempt of court over the plagiarism claim.
Lingam’s side was represented by retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, while lead counsel Cecil Abraham represented the liquidators.
Lingam was previously in the spotlight after he was caught on video allegedly attempting to fix judges.
The video gave rise to an investigation by a royal commission of inquiry, in which he denied that he was the person in the video, even though he noted that it looked and sounded like him.
The Federal Court today allowed the proceedings and dismissed Lingam’s application to strike out the application to cite him and his clients for contempt.
In a unanimous decision, the five-man Federal Court panel led by Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar ruled that there was a prima facie case to cite them for contempt.
“We find no procedural error in the obtaining of leave (for contempt of court proceedings) and are satisfied that prima facie was established against all contempters.
“Therefore, we dismiss all setting-aside applications with costs,” Justice Suriyadi said.
Also on the bench were Federal Court judges Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha.
They also allowed the respondents' request for case management but said the date would be decided by the court registrar.
The application to cite the respondents for contempt was brought by liquidators Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck.The tussle of Lingam and the 24 others versus Ooi and Ng began after a three-man Federal Court panel led by Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin delivered their decision in a commercial dispute on Jan 5, 2012.
The dispute concerns an attempt by then Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd (KJCF) managing director See Teow Chuan and 23 other majority and minority contributories of the company to block Can-One International from acquiring a 32.9 percent stake in KJCF which was wound up.
Ooi and Ng, who were the liquidators overseeing the winding-up, had granted the acquisition tender to Can-One International.
Zulkefli’s panel, which also comprised Federal Court judges Mohd Ghazali Yusoff and James Foong (retired), had decided in favour of Ooi and Ng.
The decision upheld an earlier decision by the High Court and reversed the Court of Appeal decision which was in favour of See and the contributories.
However, on Feb 21, 2012, Lingam, representing See, filed a review application of the Federal Court’s decision, citing plagiarism in its written judgement.
Also party to the application were 12 majority contributories and another 11 minority contributories of KJCF.
‘Substantial copying’
The applicants said that a substantial part of the written judgement was taken wholesale from the written submissions of counsel for Ooi and Ng.
They contended that there were legitimate concerns about miscarriage of justice as the judges could not have applied their own reasoning when they relied substantially on the respondents’ submissions.
A Federal Court panel of five judges led by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria and including Court of Appeal president Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Abdull Hamid Embong and Zainun Ali, was convened to hear the application.
In their decision on May 22 this year, they noted that Zulkefli’s panel had only adopted 70 out of 189 paragraphs of the submissions and there was nothing wrong about the adoption if it accurately reflected the judges’ own analysis.
As such, Ariffin’s panel dismissed the review application but noted that the panel discouraged such practices by judges as it would give rise to negative perception.
Following this, Ooi and Ng filed an application to cite Lingam and his clients for contempt of court over the plagiarism claim.
Lingam’s side was represented by retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, while lead counsel Cecil Abraham represented the liquidators.
Lingam was previously in the spotlight after he was caught on video allegedly attempting to fix judges.
The video gave rise to an investigation by a royal commission of inquiry, in which he denied that he was the person in the video, even though he noted that it looked and sounded like him.
View Comments0