The Penang chief minister’s lawyer Americk Sidhu said he had written to the Court of Appeal for the grounds of judgment to be expedited but had yet to receive a reply.
“The written judgment is important for the Federal Court to know what were the grounds for the Court of Appeal to allow the appeals of the five,” he told FMT.
Former Court of Appeal president Raus Sharif had said judges were given three months to prepare their written grounds from the date an aggrieved party filed an appeal in the Federal Court.
On Dec 20, a three-man Court of Appeal, hearing Lim’s case and chaired by Rohana Yusuf, said the court was bound by an earlier ruling that a public official could not sue anyone, including the media, for defamation.
The bench allowed the appeal by publishers New Straits Times Press (NSTP), Utusan Melayu, Perkasa, its president Ibrahim Ali and its Negeri Sembilan branch chief Ruslan Kassim on a preliminary objection.
Lim then filed his legal questions, a requirement under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act, to get leave for the Federal Court to hear the merit of his appeal.
Americk said the apex court had fixed another case management on July 6.
In Lim’s case, the five won their appeals as the same bench had held in March last year that Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob could not sue Utusan Melayu in his official capacity.
However, on Feb 13 , the Federal Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision as it had been decided prematurely.
The apex court remitted the case to the High Court and ordered the merit of the case to be heard by calling witnesses to give evidence.
The legal fraternity had hoped the apex court would finally determine whether the 1993 legal principle established in the Derbyshire County vs Times Newspapers Ltd case could be applied in Malaysia.
In that case, the English court had ruled that local authorities could not institute legal action based on public criticism.
In Lim’s case, Rohana said, if not for the ruling in Adnan’s matter, the court would have found the five appellants liable for labelling Lim as a “Singapore spy”.
However, she said, the bench would have reduced the RM550,000 damages awarded by the High Court to RM150,000.
Ruslan had claimed Lim had leaked Malaysia’s secrets during his trip to Singapore with InvestPenang in 2011.
In May 2012, Lim filed the defamatory suit against Ruslan, Ibrahim, Perkasa, NSTP, its then group editor Syed Nadzri Syed Harun, Utusan and Utusan group editor Abdul Aziz Ishak.
The New Straits Times and Berita Harian, under NSTP’s stable, and Utusan Malaysia (under Utusan Melayu) had published Roslan’s comment.
Even Najib Razak is waiting for the outcome of Lim’s case as the prime minister had sued PAS mouthpiece Harakahdaily, its then managing director Rosli Yaakop and Harakahdaily chief editor Taufek Yahya, following its report related to 1MDB and his stepson Riza Aziz.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has also deferred its decision as to whether Najib has legal standing to sue former transport minister Dr Ling Liong Sik for defamation.
Ling, who filed an application to strike out Najib’s suit, had alleged the prime minister had misappropriated public funds and placed them in his personal bank accounts to gain wealth and profit.