KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd has settled its libel suit with the owner of the defunct online news portal The Malaysian Insider and its news editor after they agreed to apologise over the publication of defamatory articles on the Light Rail Transit 3 (LRT 3) project.
High Court judge Justice John Louis O'Hara recorded the consent order after meeting the parties in chambers.
Lead counsel Sunil Abraham and lawyer Chuar Pei Yean appeared for MRCB while lawyers Kimberly Lee and S.Priyanka acted for the defendants.
According to the consent order made available to the media on Friday, the defendants have undertaken to publish an apology in The Edge Financial Daily and the Edge Market website by accepting their errors and expressing regrets over any distress or embarassment due to the publication of the articles on Sept 14 last year.
It stated that the settlement is full and final upon publication of the apology and there shall be no liberty to file this action afresh.
In its suit filed in November last year for libel and malicious falsehood, the construction and property development company MRCB has named Edge Insider Sdn Bhd and its news editor Amin Shah Iskandar as defendants.
The consent order further explained that Amin Shah agreed not to publish similar defamatory words against MRCB and that the articles were no longer accessible in the inoperative Malaysian Insider website.
In the statement of claim, it stated that MRCB together with a company named as George Kent (M) Bhd formed a consortium in May last year to bid for the LRT 3 project and they were awarded with the project in September last year. (The consent order said that the project was from Bandar Utama to Johan Setia.)
The plaintiff said that Amin Shah had authored a defamatory article on Sept 14 last year and it was published by the Edge Insider on the website, with its Malay version article on the same day.
MRCB had claimed that the defamatory articles implied that it or the consortium is not a deserving recipient of the tender for the construction of LRT 3 project and that it is a deceitful company that secured the project through illegal and improper means.Besides that, the plaintiff said the words had meant that it does not have the expertise required to perform its obligations for the project and that it would not have been awarded the project on merits but for cronyism and the plaintiff exerting undue political influence.
Did you find this article insightful?