Justice Amelia Tee Hong Geok Abdullah, ruling in Syabas’ favour, also dismissed Pua’s counter-claim application.
She announced her 49-page decision in chambers where she dismissed the MP's defence of qualified privilege and fair comment in making the statement.
Justice Amelia ruled that had Pua stated that the freeze on the company's capital expenditures (Capex) works, apart from critical works, and the refusal of the Selangor government to agree to a proposed tariff hike, then the MP would be entitled to the defence of qualified privilege.
“These two factors were known to Pua and had they also been part of the facts that were spoken by the defendant it would put a different complexion to the tone and substance of his speech,” she said.
“They would at the very least provide the background that the non-replacement of water pipes and mains were as a result of a freeze on Capex, which freeze is not Syabas’ doing. They would have provided the information that an increase in tariffs was provided for in the concession agreement subject to certain preconditions, but the state refused to the increase,” ruled Justice Amelia.
She said Pua had also failed to prove Syabas’ incompetence or mismanagement which led it to be unable to pay its debts or to replace the water pipes and that the proposed water tariff increase by 37 percent was improper.
“There were other factors at play which led to Syabas being unable to pay the water suppliers,” she said.
Justice Amelia also upheld the injunction on Pua from repeating the defamatory words.
The court allowed interest at four percent and legal fees to be taxed.
Ipoh Timor MP Lim Kit Siang, Bukit Bintang MP Fong Kui Loon and Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng were with Pua today.
Syabas had filed the suit on Jan 28, 2011, through the firm Sreenavasan and Young, following an article published in Nanyang Siang Pau in November 2010 entitled ‘Tony Pua: Selangor government must have water rights to prevent price hike’, which the water utility company claimed was defamatory.
The firm claimed the offending words meant that Syabas was incompetent in managing water supply rights, given its inability to manage its debts or replace water pipes, and that the company was making improper claims to raise the tariff which are aimed for self-benefit and to the unfair detriment of the public at large.
Syabas claimed Pua’s (right)
statement has affected its reputation, goodwill, commercial credit, and
had subjected it to public ridicule, resulting in it suffering injury
to its trade and business.It had sought general damages, interest at eight percent per annum, costs and other relief deemed necessary by the court.
Meanwhile, Pua, in his defence statement and counter-claim filed on March 14, 2011, admitted the existence of the Nanyang article and provided its full translation.
The MP claimed his statement came following articles which were published in The Sun, The Star and The Edge and also public reports and statements issued by Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd, which owns a majority stake in Syabas.
Defence of qualified privilege
In claiming the defence of qualified privilege, Pua, who is also the DAP national publicity secretary and a member of the Selangor government water review panel, claimed that he took reasonable steps to verify his information which was based on the above.
Pua applied for Syabas’ suit to be dismissed with costs and in turn made a counter-claim alleging that the claim was unwarranted and without basis.
He claimed the Syabas suit was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process and resulted in him suffering losses and damages as a result of unnecessary harassment and expenses, including legal costs after the suit was filed against him.
Following this, Pua claimed general and exemplary damages and costs.
Pua, in commenting on the decision, said he will consult his lawyers but there is “no reason for him” not to appeal.
“I still think what I said is not defamatory and I will not repeat what I had said,” said Pua, who is DAP national publicity secretary.
No comments:
Post a Comment