Chong speaks to the reporters after the trial proceedings.
KUCHING (April 22): Lawyer Michael Kong, who is being sued for defamation by entrepreneur Dato Richard Wee, filed an application yesterday through his counsel Chong Chieng Jen to expunge substantial parts of the testimony given by the plaintiff’s witness Wong King Wei during cross-examination.
Chong said the application to expunge parts of former Padungan assemblyman Wong’s testimony was based on three grounds.
“First, the evidence provided by Wong King Wei is irrelevant to the case; and two, his testimony was more of a personal attack directed at me, who is only the defendant’s lawyer, rather than the party taking action in the case.
“Last but not least, if his evidence were to not be expunged by the court, then the defendant will have no choice but to call in more witnesses to rebut his evidence, which will unnecessarily prolong the trial and waste the court’s time,” he told reporters at the end of the trial.
High Court Judge Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab had earlier fixed April 26 for Chong to file an affidavit in reply and for the plaintiff’s counsel to do the same on April 27, with reply to the main submission to be exchanged on May 7.
The court also fixed May 20, 2022 for the hearing of the application to expunge.
During yesterday’s trial, the plaintiff’s final witness, Hubline Berhad chief executive officer Hudson Chua, was asked by Chong in regards to insurance recovery amounting to RM10,059,971 and the company’s extraordinary income in 2019.
Chong: Can you refer to Page 111 of the same exhibit under the item ‘other income’ where there is item ‘insurance recovery’, where for the year 2019, it was RM10,059,971. Can you explain what is this insurance recovery?
Chua: From what I can remember, the insurance recovery relates to insurance claim that was ascertained during the year from an accident to its barge. The claim included loss of profit as well as cost to repair the barge.
Chong: Is it normal throughout your years as an auditor to Hubline Berhad that this item ‘insurance recovery’ goes up to more than RM10 million?
Chua: The insurance claim would have to relate to the matter claimed and, in this case, if the insured amount is of that quantum and the insurance company has agreed to pay, then the claim is normal.
Chong: You are not answering the question. Do you understand my question? And I also ask you to make reference to the other financial reports for Hubline to see if it is normal that such an item gives rise to an income of more than RM10 million?
Chua: Insurance claims are normal but the quantum will fluctuate depending on each claim. It is not something that can be predicted whether it is normal or not.
Chong: Can you refer to Exhibit P5 which is ‘Annual Report of Hubline Berhad 2017’, Page 94. Can you tell us what was the amount of insurance recovery under item ‘other income’ of Hubline Berhad for the year 2016?
Chua: The amount was RM671,580.
Chong: How about the insurance recovery of the company for the year 2017?
Chua: The amount was RM1,294,845.
Chong: Can you please turn to Exhibit P7, Page 111. Can you tell us what was the insurance recovery of the group for the year 2018?
Chua: The amount was RM3,505,561.00.
Chong: Can you turn to DSBOD3, Page 124 (Enclosure 110) of the bundle, which is Page 117 of the Annual Report of Hubline for the year 2020. Am I right?
Chua: Yes.
Chong: What was the figure of insurance recovery of the Hubline Berhad group for the year 2020?
Chua: The amount was RM1,732,388.00.
Chong: Had it not been for the income in the amount of RM10,057,971 from the insurance recovery of the Hubline Berhad group in the year 2019, Hubline Berhad Group would still be making a loss for the year 2019?
Chua: I disagree, as the result of Hubline for 2019 had shown increase in its revenue from RM101,978,735 in 2018 to RM124,459,885, which had also contributed significantly to the improvement in results. The profit of the group was not solely due to insurance recovery but also due to increase in revenue and how the group was managed during that year.
At this point, the plaintiff’s lawyer Shankar Ram questioned Chong’s motive, saying the line of questioning towards the witness showed a malicious intent that may harm the image of Hubline Berhad.
Shankar said the line of questioning appeared to be against Hubline when this was a defamation case.
Chong replied that he only intended to highlight the fact that 2019 was the only year where the company made a profit, and which the witness (Chua) stated that it was the result of the plaintiff’s great effort.
Meanwhile, Judge Alwi fixed July 4 and 5 for the defence to present its case.
Chong informed the court that the defendant so far has “between two and three” witnesses who will testify.
Assisting Shankar are lawyers Russell Lim and Yu Ying Ying, while Chong is assisted by lawyers Sim Kiat Leng and Brenda Chong.
Wee is suing Kong for defamation over a statement posted by the latter on Facebook in July 2020.
He is seeking general damages, exemplary damages for libel and malicious falsehood, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing, causing to be published, circulating and distributing the said post.
from Borneo Post Online https://ift.tt/whcNTe7
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment