April 7 hearing for Loo's application to transfer defamation case

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today fixed April 7 next year to hear the application by Penang Gerakan Youth acting chief Jason Loo Jieh Sheng to transfer the lawsuit against him to the Penang High Court.
The case involved the proposed undersea tunnel and three highway projects in the state.
High Court deputy registrar Nurul Ain Hamzah set the date in chambers during case management in which Loo was represented by counsel Ong Siang Liang.
Ong told reporters when met that the judge for the case would be decided later, while the court had set Feb 6 for case management.
Loo applied for transfer of the lawsuit filed by Consortium Zenith BUCG Sdn Bhd to the Penang High Court as the issue in question involved Penang.
On Aug 8, the company which had been entrusted to build the tunnel sued Loo alleging he on June 23 had uttered defamatory words against it and which were then posted on news portal, Malaysiakini, the same day.
It claimed that Loo when making the statement to reporters had also questioned its credibility, alleging it was not trustworthy, dishonest, a fraud and corrupted.
It claimed its reputation had been damaged by Loo's defamatory statement and is seeking, among others, an injunction to restrain the defendant or his workers from republishing the alleged defamatory statement.
Consortium Zenith, in its statement of claim, said it was given a contract by the Penang state government on Oct 6, 2013, to carry out an in-depth study on an undersea tunnel and three highway projects in the state.
The three road projects comprised the 12km paired highway from Jalan Tanjung Bungah to Teluk Bahang, 4.6km bypass from Air Itam to Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway and 4.2km bypass from Gurney Drive to Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway.
Loo, in his statement of defence, denied he had mentioned Consortium Zenith when making the statement to reporters on June 23, and had only referred to Penang representatives or state government officers.
He further claimed that he had been disparaged by the company, that it had not given a true picture of the facts, contents and misled all parties by blatantly suing him. — Bernama