The defence contractor failed to get a hearing for the RM480-million suit against the government.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Malaysian defence contractor Langkawi R&D Academy Sdn Bhd (Lardac) for a trial in which it was suing the government for RM480 million for breach of contract.
In a unanimous decision, a three-man panel said that Lardac’s lawyer M Manogaran had agreed not to call for witnesses to give their statements in the original three-day trial, which started on April 6, 2010, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Panel chairman Abdul Malik Haji Ishak said: “The mode of disposing of the case was agreed to by both parties, and the notes of proceedings support this course of action.”
He also instructed Lardac to pay RM15,000 in costs.
In 2005, Lardac had filed a suit against the Malaysian government claiming damages against an allegedly wrongful termination of its services and a breach of contract four years earlier.
Back in 2001, Lardac had been brought in to engage in refurbishment works involving the first of 10 Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Northrop F5-E & F fighters.
The contractor claimed that the ministry had dropped Lardac, going for the British-based Caledonian Airborne Systems Ltd (CAS) to take over Lardac’s work.
This was despite Lardac being awarded the contract to work on the RMAF fighters on Oct 11 2001. Lardac claimed that CAS did not have a specific contract to work on those planes, and added that the latter was at one point, also a former sub-contractor.
In its original suit, Lardac had named the-then Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak (now Prime Minister), the ministry’s secretary-general and the Malaysian government as defendants.
Five plaintiff witnesses, including former Defence Ministry secretary-general Hashim Meon, and four defence witnesses, were supposed to testify during the trial.
‘Something wrong with the transcripts’
However, the-then High Court judge Justice Abdul Wahab Patail (now Court of Appeal) decided not to listen to their testimonies even though the witnesses were in court, and their statements filed earlier.
Abdul Wahab dismissed the suit on July 9, 2010, without any grounds, and ordered Lardac to pay RM20,000 in costs.
At today’s hearing, Manogaran told the three-man panel that Abdul Wahab did not appear to want to listen to the witnesses.
“Why is the learned judge (Abdul Wahab) so afraid of hearing witnesses?… My clients are not in the court to play games… Clearly the learned judge doesn’t want a trial, for whatever reasons,” the Teluk Intan MP said.
Citing a transcript of the 2010 proceedings, the respondents’ lawyers, represented by senior federal counsel Nik Mohd Noor Nik Kar, told the court that Manogaran had agreed not to call for the witnesses.
Manogaran promptly denied this. He later told reporters that it did not make sense as the witnesses had been called to court during the trial.
“I categorically denied that this case be heard without calling for witnesses. We brought in five witnesses to the court on the same date!”
“…Something is wrong with the transcripts. I believe maybe the transcripts have been tampered with… I’m more inclined to believe something is wrong with the case.”
“Why (is it) so difficult (to go) for (a) trial? I’m not asking for (a) re-trial. This case was never heard on its merits…Why don’t we hear witnesses?…I’m not asking for judgments… What is so wrong with that?” he said.
Manogaran also did not appear impressed with the three-man panel’s decision, and promptly reminded reporters of Abdul Malik’s controversial status.
In October last year, Abdul Malik was revealed by veteran lawyer Karpal Singh to have plagiarised Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam’s judgment during his service as Johor High Court judge in 2000.
Karpal subsequently called for Malik’s immediate resignation to save the judiciary from embarrassment.
Asked on the next step taken, Manogaran said he would discuss the matter with his clients first.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Malaysian defence contractor Langkawi R&D Academy Sdn Bhd (Lardac) for a trial in which it was suing the government for RM480 million for breach of contract.In a unanimous decision, a three-man panel said that Lardac’s lawyer M Manogaran had agreed not to call for witnesses to give their statements in the original three-day trial, which started on April 6, 2010, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Panel chairman Abdul Malik Haji Ishak said: “The mode of disposing of the case was agreed to by both parties, and the notes of proceedings support this course of action.”
He also instructed Lardac to pay RM15,000 in costs.
In 2005, Lardac had filed a suit against the Malaysian government claiming damages against an allegedly wrongful termination of its services and a breach of contract four years earlier.
Back in 2001, Lardac had been brought in to engage in refurbishment works involving the first of 10 Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Northrop F5-E & F fighters.
The contractor claimed that the ministry had dropped Lardac, going for the British-based Caledonian Airborne Systems Ltd (CAS) to take over Lardac’s work.
This was despite Lardac being awarded the contract to work on the RMAF fighters on Oct 11 2001. Lardac claimed that CAS did not have a specific contract to work on those planes, and added that the latter was at one point, also a former sub-contractor.
In its original suit, Lardac had named the-then Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak (now Prime Minister), the ministry’s secretary-general and the Malaysian government as defendants.
Five plaintiff witnesses, including former Defence Ministry secretary-general Hashim Meon, and four defence witnesses, were supposed to testify during the trial.
‘Something wrong with the transcripts’
However, the-then High Court judge Justice Abdul Wahab Patail (now Court of Appeal) decided not to listen to their testimonies even though the witnesses were in court, and their statements filed earlier.
Abdul Wahab dismissed the suit on July 9, 2010, without any grounds, and ordered Lardac to pay RM20,000 in costs.
At today’s hearing, Manogaran told the three-man panel that Abdul Wahab did not appear to want to listen to the witnesses.
“Why is the learned judge (Abdul Wahab) so afraid of hearing witnesses?… My clients are not in the court to play games… Clearly the learned judge doesn’t want a trial, for whatever reasons,” the Teluk Intan MP said.
Citing a transcript of the 2010 proceedings, the respondents’ lawyers, represented by senior federal counsel Nik Mohd Noor Nik Kar, told the court that Manogaran had agreed not to call for the witnesses.
Manogaran promptly denied this. He later told reporters that it did not make sense as the witnesses had been called to court during the trial.
“I categorically denied that this case be heard without calling for witnesses. We brought in five witnesses to the court on the same date!”
“…Something is wrong with the transcripts. I believe maybe the transcripts have been tampered with… I’m more inclined to believe something is wrong with the case.”
“Why (is it) so difficult (to go) for (a) trial? I’m not asking for (a) re-trial. This case was never heard on its merits…Why don’t we hear witnesses?…I’m not asking for judgments… What is so wrong with that?” he said.
Manogaran also did not appear impressed with the three-man panel’s decision, and promptly reminded reporters of Abdul Malik’s controversial status.
In October last year, Abdul Malik was revealed by veteran lawyer Karpal Singh to have plagiarised Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam’s judgment during his service as Johor High Court judge in 2000.
Karpal subsequently called for Malik’s immediate resignation to save the judiciary from embarrassment.
Asked on the next step taken, Manogaran said he would discuss the matter with his clients first.
No comments:
Post a Comment