Screenshots

This morning, my legal team filed a new striking-out application against the amended claims against this blogger by New Straits Times Press Bhd (NSTP) and 3 Others, namely Kalimullah bin Masheerul Hassan, Hishamuddin bin Aun and Brenden John a/l John Pereira.

My lawyers had entered in the Summons in Chambers filed today that the plaintiffs' amended Statement of Claims dated February 12, 2007 is EMBARRASSING.

For the record, and as mentioned earlier in this blog yesterday, the plaintiffs of the defamation suit -- NSTP and 3 Others -- amended their Statement of Claims in February AFTER I had applied to have the suit struck out in January. My lawyers had called the plaintiffs' original (January) claims, served via Messrs Shearn Delamore, FATALLY DEFICIENT.

I was advised that withdrawing my January application to have the claims struck out became necessary after the plaintiffs amended their original Statement of Claims in February.

No order as to costs

At the hearing in chambers before High Court Judge Abdul Malik Ishak this morning, it was decided that the first striking-out application (over the plaintiffs' original Statement of Claims) would be withdrawn with no orders as to costs.

The date for the hearing of the new striking-out application will be determined later.

With this development, the Court had fixed June 19 for the mention of the inter-parte injunction, alongside the hearing proper of my application to consolidate my case with Rocky's and for it to be heard in KL High Court S3 before Justice Hishamuddin Yunus.

Meanwhile, the ex-parte injunction that resulted in this blogger having to keep 15 allegedly defamatory postings off Screenshots still stands.

New strike-out application

In making the new application to strike out the plaintiffs' amended Statement of Claims dated February 12, my lawyers plead that it is embarrassing in that:

1 ) It failed to plead whether the purported defamatory imputations which have been given rise to by the various publications refers to EACH OF the Plaintiffs, or refers to ALL the Plaintiffs when read cumulatively; and

2 ) It also failed to indicate whether the allegedly offending publications are intended TO BE READ TOGETHER and that whether the imputations flow from the offending publications when read cumulatively.

My lawyers also plead that the said amended Statement of Claims failed to show the exact nature of the Plaintiffs' case against the Defendant, i.e. this blogger.

In summary, I have been advised by my lawyers that the amended Statement of Claims is EMBARRASSING in that:

1 ) I do not know the exact nature of the Plaintiffs' case against me;

2 ) I am left in uncertainty as to which imputations flow from each of the alleged offending publications and/or comments.

Prior to the new application to strike out the amended claims, my lawyers had written to Plaintiffs' solicitors, requesting for the matter to be remedied, but to no avail.

The plaintiffs were represented today by Rishwant Singh of Messrs. Shearn Delamore. I was represented by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Balan Nair.