In a unanimous decision, the Federal Court allowed a leave application to cite lawyer VK Lingam, former Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd (KJCF) group managing director See Teow Chuan and 23 others for contempt of court over their allegation that a Federal Court judge had plagiarised in a written judgment involving a civil suit.

A five-man bench headed by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria today granted the leave after hearing submissions by counsel Cecil Abraham who represented two other liquidators of Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (KJH).

The Apex Court also heard brief submissions of senior federal counsel Azizah Nawawi, acting for the Attorney-General’s Office, and counsel Razlan Hadri Zulkifli representing the Bar Council.

Arifin ruled a prima facie case was established in citing Lingam and the others before setting April 13 for a similar application filed by Lingam against Abraham and the two liquidators, Ooi Woon Chee and Ng Kim Tuck.

The Apex Court did not set a date for the contempt prceedings against Lingam.

During his submission, Abraham told the court that there was no proof of bias and no evidence of the Federal Court judge having acted impartially in the civil suit.

He submitted further there was no question of the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary or public confidence in the judiciary being undermined as claimed by the applicants.

'Part and parcel of adjudicating process'

“The Federal Court had accepted and reproduced largely or substantially, the legal submission of the applicants, it's part and parcel of the adjudicating process,” contended Abraham.

He said the applicants’ action was also an attempt to undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the impartiality of the court.

Azizah supported Abraham’s application and agreed there was a prima facie case established against Lingam and the others.

Meanwhile, Razlan said the words used in the application “may have gone overboard” without any cogent evidence supporting the allegation.

In 2009, See and the 23 filed an application at the High Court after the factory won the tender to purchase 32.9 percent stake in KJCF.

They failed to stop the factory from acquiring the shares at the High Court but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision and the case was brought to the Federal Court which ruled in favour of the liquidators.

See and the rest filed a notice of motion through Lingam, seeking the  Federal Court to review the decision by its previous panel.

They sought the Federal Court to set aside the decision of the previous Federal Court panel and order a re-hearing of the appeals before a new Federal Court panel.

In the notice of motion, they gave grounds for the review, claiming that  the Federal Court’s 47-page judgment was substantially a reproduction of a written submission from Ooi and Ng without any attribution to them.

They claimed that the court did not conduct an independent and impartial  review of the evidence and the law, where it did not engage in its own analysis or reach its own findings.

- Bernama