PUTRAJAYA: Lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam and 24 others are facing contempt of court charges for alleging a panel of three judges plagiarised in a civil judgment.
Federal Court judge Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar ruled that the application by Lingam and 24 others to set aside leave granted by the apex court to commence contempt proceedings against them was without merits.
“We find (there is) no procedural error in (two liquidators) obtaining leave (to cite them for contempt of court),” said Justice Suriyadi, who chaired a five-man panel.
With him were Federal Court judges Justices Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah, Zaleha Zahari and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha.
Justice Suriyadi said they were satisfied that a prima facie case had been established against all of them.
“We dismiss the setting aside of application with costs,” he said.
He said the Bench made the ruling after hearing submissions and considered available evidence over the application.
The panel reserved the order as to costs until disposal of the substantive application.
Lingam’s counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram told the Bench that his client would be giving evidence in court.
Sri Ram said his application was made under Order 52 Rule 5(4) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 and Order 52 Rule 6(4) of the Rules of Court 2012 that stated such a person was entitled to give oral evidence.
Lingam applied for the court to set a case management as few of his clients were overseas.
Sri Ram said the Bench could opt for the registry to issue a notice for case management for the parties involved in the civil dispute.
The Federal Court had in April last year granted leave to two liquidators to initiate contempt proceedings against Lingam and 24 others over a review application on issues of plagiarism by a panel of three judges.
The two liquidators, Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck, sought leave for Lingam to be committed for contempt of court for advising, drafting and/or filing the review application and its related affidavit at the apex court over a civil judgment concerning a company’s sale of shares.
They claimed that Lingam and others should have known that the statements contained in the documents would subvert the administration of justice, undermine public confidence in the judiciary, ridicule, scandalise and offend the dignity, integrity and impartiality of the court.