How did the Court of Appeal justify increasing damages against Chong?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Court of Appeal increased damages against Chong without providing the specific justification in the available account
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Sarawak DAP chief Chong Chieng Jen’s appeal and increased the damages awarded to the Sarawak government and the Sarawak Financial Authority (SFA) from RM150,000 to RM300,000. It also ordered Chong to pay RM150,000 in costs to the respondents. However, the account of the decision does not include the court’s detailed legal reasoning for raising the damages.
What the Court of Appeal did to the damages and costs
The Court of Appeal, in a three-judge panel, upheld the High Court’s finding that Chong defamed the Sarawak government and the SFA. It raised the damages from RM150,000 to RM300,000 for the state and the SFA. The court further ordered Chong to pay RM150,000 in costs to the respondents.
What the earlier High Court ruling established
The defamation suit was filed in 2013 after Chong alleged that RM11 billion in state funds had disappeared into a “black hole.” The matter went to trial in January 2021 and concluded in July 2021. In August 2022, the High Court ruled that Chong’s claims were defamatory.
The retrial argument raised during the appeal
During the appeal, Chong’s lawyer, Michael Kong, argued for a retrial. The contention was that the trial judge erred in setting aside a subpoena for former state finance minister II Wong Soon Koh, which prevented him from testifying for the defence. Counsel for the Sarawak government and the SFA argued the trial was conducted properly and that a retrial would prejudice the plaintiffs and inconvenience witnesses.
What is missing on the specific damages increase rationale
While the account confirms the damages were increased to RM300,000, it does not provide the Court of Appeal’s specific justification or legal grounds for why the figure was raised. It also does not detail any assessment factors or calculations cited by the court in reaching the higher damages amount. As a result, the precise reasoning for the increase is not stated in the information available here.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How did the Court of Appeal justify increasing damages against Chong?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends