A-G to continue contempt case against Lingam, 24 others, say sources

Prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam, once implicated for allegedly fixing judicial appointments 12 years ago, and 24 others will face contempt of court proceedings for claiming that a Federal Court panel had plagiarised a civil judgment, after failing to persuade the Attorney-General to drop the action, sources said.

Sources told The Malaysian Insider that a letter informing the parties that Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail would commence contempt proceedings was conveyed to one of their lawyers last Friday (November 21).

A letter of representation on behalf of the 25 was sent to Gani two weeks ago.

"The legal team will have to meet soon to decide the next course of action as proceedings in the Federal Court are scheduled for December 8," a source told The Malaysian Insider.

Lingam is scheduled to take the stand in the apex court to give evidence under oath. The lawyer, who was previously implicated by a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) for fixing judicial appointments and judges’ case assignments, has not been present in court as he is overseas and on medical leave.

A source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Lingam was unable to walk and wheelchair-bound, and was seeking treatment at a private hospital in the United States.

"The proceedings cannot go on without Lingam's presence. Moreover, the court has been notified that he wants to give evidence and be prepared to be cross-examined," the source added.

On August 7, a five-man bench chaired by Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar allowed Gani's application to take over contempt proceedings against Lingam and 24 others for accusing n panel of Federal Court judges of plagiarism in its judgment in a civil case.

This followed an application by the liquidators of Kian Joo Can Sdn Bhd (KJC) to withdraw commencing contempt action against the 25.

On June 18, lawyers for liquidators Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck applied to the court to drop the action against the respondents but the court had asked them to reconsider.

The liquidators said there was no longer a necessity to proceed with the contempt proceedings as they had distributed the Kian Joo assets, the subject matter of a long-drawn legal battle spanning 19 years.

Subsequently, Gani filed an application to take over the matter.

Apart from Lingam, the other respondents are lawyer A.S. Thisinayagam, and 12 majority and 11 minority contributories of Kian Joo.

The 25 respondents were ordered to answer contempt charges last year.

If found guilty, they could be jailed, fined, or both, with no limitation on the jail term or the amount of fine. They could also walk away with a warning.

Since the matter is being heard in the Federal Court, the respondents have no avenue for further appeal.

The legal tussle that led to the contempt proceedings in this case began in 2009 when the respondents went to the High Court after Can-One International Sdn Bhd, a rival company, won the tender to purchase a 32.9% stake in KJC.

The respondents failed in the High Court to stop Can-One from acquiring the shares.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. The case was then taken to the Federal Court where a three-man bench led by Tan Sri Zulkelfi Ahmad Makinudin ruled in favour of the liquidators.

The 23 majority and minority contributories represented by Lingam filed a review in early 2012 for the Federal Court to relook at the court’s decision.

The contributories included Datuk See Teow Chuan, a director of KJC, his brothers and sisters, who claimed that the Federal Court’s 47-page judgment was substantially a reproduction of a written submission from lawyers who represented Ooi and Ng.

However, on February 21, 2012, Lingam, who was representing See, filed a review application of the Federal Court’s decision, citing plagiarism in its written judgment.

Also party to the application were 12 majority contributories and 11 minority contributories of KJCF.

They said there was a miscarriage of justice as the judges could not have applied their own reasoning because they substantially relied on the submissions of lawyers who appeared for the liquidators.

A five-man Federal Court led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria, who heard the review application last year, observed 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 reflected accurately the judges’ own analysis.

Ariffin went on to dismiss the review application but noted that the bench discouraged such practices by judges as it would give rise to negative perception.

Following this, the liquidators filed the application to cite Lingam and his clients for contempt of court over the plagiarism claim. – November 24, 2014.