Legitimate questions should be asked professionally to all parties by giving 14 days to respond.
This professional courtesy was not done
Fact
(a) I think this posting is related to a political power play.
(b) MH is linked/ funded by Azmin Ali
(c) MRCB is a listed company. If MRCB was given LOA for such a project, they have to disclose it as material business to SC and Bursa. There has been no announcement which means that there is no LOA
As legal practitioners these lawyers ought to be aware that a defendant in any matter is entitled to know the full facts and details of the case against them in order that they are able to defend against it. In its present form these bald unsubstantiated allegations do not identify any issues or evidence of any defamation or particularize any of them in such a way that the respondent is allegedly obliged or simply able to defend.
Setting aside any other collateral argument advanced by the lawyers for the Selangor government, the principle allegations of defamation fail at the outset for a number of reasons.
A demand for apology from the respondent is neither canvassed nor demanded in proper form. The letter of demand is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which we identify below:
i) The lawyers provide no evidence of defamation of their client in the letter or the articles from which they quote.
ii) The lawyers fail to identify then particularize any statement in the article capable of supporting their client’s claim to defamation of them.
iii) They fail to identify with any specificity the defamation their client alleges or the relief sought.
What their letter of demand instead appears to do is to make sweeping, bald and unsubstantiated allegations of defamation said to be contained in the articles and statements referred to. They assert this by appending a selective extrats of various article and statements (not in its entirety) purported to be factual and precise reproduction of statements made by the respondents to their letter of demand. From this we are invited draw the inference that, the article even if not in its entirety is in some way defamatory of their client.
What do you expect from half
past 6 lawyers!
Legitimate questions should be asked professionally to all parties by giving 14 days to respond.
This professional courtesy was not done
Fact
(a) I think this posting is related to a political power play.
(b) MH is linked/ funded by Azmin Ali
(c) MRCB is a listed company. If MRCB was given LOA for such a project, they have to disclose it as material business to SC and Bursa. There has been no announcement which means that there is no LOA
MH is speculating - no different from Raja Petra.
As legal practitioners these lawyers ought to be aware that a defendant in any matter is entitled to know the full facts and details of the case against them in order that they are able to defend against it. In its present form these bald unsubstantiated allegations do not identify any issues or evidence of any defamation or particularize any of them in such a way that the respondent is allegedly obliged or simply able to defend.
Setting aside any other collateral argument advanced by the lawyers for the Selangor government, the principle allegations of defamation fail at the outset for a number of reasons.
A demand for apology from the respondent is neither canvassed nor demanded in proper form. The letter of demand is flawed for a number of reasons, some of which we identify below:
i) The lawyers provide no evidence of defamation of their client in the letter or the articles from which they quote.
ii) The lawyers fail to identify then particularize any statement in the article capable of supporting their client’s claim to defamation of them.
iii) They fail to identify with any specificity the defamation their client alleges or the relief sought.
What their letter of demand instead appears to do is to make sweeping, bald and unsubstantiated allegations of defamation said to be contained in the articles and statements referred to. They assert this by appending a selective extrats of various article and statements (not in its entirety) purported to be factual and precise reproduction of statements made by the respondents to their letter of demand. From this we are invited draw the inference that, the article even if not in its entirety is in some way defamatory of their client.
Malaysian lawyers (all experts) at work.