Lim’s lawyer Americk Sidhu said he collected the 37-page judgment today from the secretary to Justice Rohana Yusof, who wrote the grounds.
The lawyer had in the past written four letters to the court to provide its judgment.
“The judgment is dated Feb 27. This will pave the way for my client’s leave to appeal application before the Federal Court to be heard soon,” he told FMT after a case management before deputy registrar Noor Haslinda Che Seman.
Americk said Noor Haslinda had fixed another case management on April 16 to allow the respondents to file affidavits replying to Lim’s five questions of law to obtain leave to reverse the Court of Appeal ruling.
He said Lim’s hearing would be held in abeyance as the Federal Court would be making a ruling soon on whether the Sarawak government, as a public authority, could sue Bandar Kuching MP Chong Chieng Jen for defamation.
In Lim’s case, the Court of Appeal held that Lim, being a public officer, could not sue for defamation.
In May 2012, Lim sued The New Straits Times Press (NSTP), Utusan Melayu (M) Sdn Bhd, Perkasa, its president Ibrahim Ali and Negeri Sembilan branch chief Ruslan Kassim.
Also named as parties were then-NSTP group editor Syed Nadzri Syed Harun and Utusan group editor Abdul Aziz Ishak, who still holds that position.
In the oral ruling in favour of the appellants, Rohana, who chaired a three-man Court of Appeal bench, said the court was bound by an earlier ruling that a public official could not sue anyone, including the media, for defamation.
In March 2016, the Court of Appeal led by the same panel struck out Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob’s suit against Utusan Melayu (M) Berhad as he had filed the case in his official capacity.
Others who sat with Rohana were Idrus Harun and Mary Lim.
The court accepted that the legal principle established in the Derbyshire County vs Times Newspapers Ltd case also applied here.
In that case, decided in 1993, the court ruled that local authorities could not institute legal action based on criticism.
In November, 2016, during the appeal hearing, the appellants raised a preliminary objection that Adnan’s case applied to Lim.
Rohana said if not for Adnan’s case, the court would have dismissed the appeal and given Lim a reduced compensation of RM150,000.
The bench also set aside the RM550,000 damages awarded by the High Court.
In March 2015, High Court judge Nor Bee Ariffin found the publishers, Perkasa, Ibrahim and Ruslan liable for defamation.
Ruslan had claimed that Lim leaked Malaysia’s secrets during his trip to Singapore with InvestPenang in 2011.
In his statement of claim, Lim said Ruslan had published a statement on Perkasa’s website on Oct 1, 2011, asking businessman Mohamad Azman Yahya to explain his meeting with another corporate leader, Kalimullah Hassan, and a PAP senior leader in Singapore on Aug 12, 2011.
Lim said the statement implied that he was endangering national security by exposing the country’s secrets to Singapore.
Ruslan’s comment had been carried by the New Straits Times and Berita Harian, publications under NSTP’s stable, and Utusan Malaysia, under Utusan Melayu.
Hiccup in Guan Eng’s defamation appeal as no written judgment yet
Ex-judge cites 3 reasons why Court of Appeal judgments delayed, suggests solutions