Authorities stopped the interview, but Lim had already spoken out.
Guan Lim wasn’t happy about the judgement in a recent court case… but before he could finish his thoughts, the interview was bought to a grinding halt.
On May 11, 2012, Lim filed the defamatory suit against seven defendants, claiming that Ruslan had published a statement on Perkasa’s website on Oct 1, 2011, asking businessman Datuk Mohamad Azman Yahya to explain his meeting with Datuk Seri Kalimullah Hassan and a PAP senior leader in Singapore on Aug 12, 2011.
Lim claimed that the statement implied that he was endangering national security by exposing the country’s secrets to Singapore and had sought for general, exemplary and special damages of RM15 million, as well as interest, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
They had appealed against a High Court ruling on March 26, 2015, which granted Lim’s suit against them and ordered them to pay damages totalling RM550,000 after finding that the statement was defamatory of Lim.
The High Court had ordered Ruslan, Ibrahim and Perkasa to pay RM150,000 in general and aggravated damages, and Syed Nazri and NSTP to pay RM200,000, and Abdul Aziz and Utusan Melayu to pay RM200,000 in general and aggravated damages.
However, Justice Rohana said, having heard submissions on the merits in the appeals and having read the written submissions by both parties, the court found the four main issues raised by the defendants (appellants) in grounds of appeal to be devoid of any merit.
“We agreed on the finding of facts made by the trial High Court judge and we have no reason to intervene with her finding of facts that the claim of defamation is sustainable. Thus, we would affirm the finding made by the High Court judge on the liability of defendants (appellants) to him (Lim),” she said.
On the quantum of damages, Justice Rohana said the High Court judge had fallen in error in taking into account aggravated damages in determining the global sum because such damages were never pleaded in the suit.
“Having taken into account the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the appropriate damages should be as follows,” she said.
She then reduced the quantum of damages from RM550,000 to RM150,000.