WALK WITH US... Updates of 04.04 hearing...
UPDATED VERSION. Today's hearing in chambers for my application to consolidate my defamation suit (The NSTP & 3 Others vs. this blogger) with that of Rocky's, and have them heard in KL High Court S3, could not take place as the plaintiffs' lawyers pleaded for more time to prepare their Affidavits-in-Reply.
My lawyers agreed, and presiding Judge, Justice Malik Ishak, allowed it. A new date has been scheduled for June 19, 2007.
Meanwhile, the mention of my earlier applications to strike out the plaintiffs' claims against me, and to set aside the ex-parte injunction ordered against me -- both based the plaintiffs' original Statements of Claims of January 11 -- still stays as per earlier scheduled for April 24, 2007.
March 20, 2007: Defence lawyers served on the plaintiffs a sealed copy of my application to consolidate both Rocky's case and mine under High Court S3. Basis: The consolidation will (i) lead to saving of time and costs; and (ii) ensure that decision of an inconsistent nature will not be handed down by the courts.
The application was made, and my lawyers agreed, as there are common points in both cases, and consolidating them would expedite the proceedings.
"There are common issues of fact and law (in the two cases)," Defence counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar was quoted as saying in an AFP story.
Imtiaz and Balan Nair appeared as defence counsel today; while Cecil Abraham and Rishwant Singh represented the plaintiffs.
Here's a chronology in recap of what transpired in the last two months after the plaintiffs served me their first Statement of Claims (January 11, 2007) which ha since been overtaken by later event:
1 ) January 30, 2007: The Court was told that blogger Jeff Ooi had applied to strike out the defamation suit by The NSTP & 3 Others, and the setting aside of the ex-parte injunction. Defence lawyers called the plaintiffs' claims fatally deficient. Mention fixed for April 24, 2007.2 ) February 15, 2007: Defence lawyers were served an amended Statement of Claims by the plaintiffs.
3 ) March 6, 2007: Lawyers from both parties agreed to take a new date for hearing, pending the perusal of the amended Statement of Claims (of February 15) and the counsel’s decision on the position of our application to strike out of the suit, and to set aside the ex-parte injunction against me.
4 ) March 20, 2007: Defence lawyers served on the plaintiffs a sealed copy of my application to consolidate both Rocky's case and mine under High Court S3. Basis: The consolidation will (i) lead to saving of time and costs; and (ii) ensure that decision of an inconsistent nature will not be handed down by the courts.
Hearing was fixed for April 4, 2007.
5 ) April 2, 2007: Defence lawyers were served a sealed copy the plaintiffs' Affidavits-in-Reply to my March 20 application to consolidate the two cases. The plaintiffs objected to the the consolidation, stating that it was premature; that the defendant (this blogger) had shown inconsistent conduct in his other applications; and that Rocky has yet to file his defence.
6 ) April 3, 2007: Defence lawyers filed with the High Court an Affidavit-in-Reply to the plaintiffs' Affidavit-in-Reply (April 2), with three exhibits, stating that the defendant shall reserve his right under the law. A sealed copy was being served on the plaintiffs' lawyers is due course.
7 ) April 4, 2007: Pliaintiffs' lawyers pleaded for more time to file their Affidavits-in-Reply. Hearing fixed for June 28, 2007.