1MDB lawsuit: Court sets July 24 to hear Najib's applications

Nor Emelia Iszeham, who represented the prime minister, told reporters that Najib had filed the application to expunge the paragraphs as the defamatory words used by Pua were merely hearsays and were not of his (Pua's) personal knowledge.

The lawyer said Najib had also filed a second application to expunge several paragraphs in the statement of defence filed by Chan Chee Kong, the second defendant in the case, on ground that the statement of defence was not a reasonable comment.

Both applications were filed on May 25.

Nor Emelia was met after the case was mentioned before High Court Deputy Registrar K. Pavani in chambers today.

Pua, as the first defendant, was represented by lawyer Alliff Benjamin Suhaimi, while Chan was represented by lawyer Shahid Adli Kamarudin.

Nor Emelia said the court set July 24 to hear the two applications.

Meanwhile, Alliff said the court had also set the same date to hear Pua's application, which was filed on May 8, to strike out Najib's lawsuit.

Najib, in his personal capacity, filed the lawsuit on March 5 and named Pua, 42, and the owner of Mediarakyat.net portal, Chan, 51, as the first and second defendants.

In his statement of claim, Najib said that on Nov 13 last year, Pua, as the main speaker at a DAP fund-raising dinner, had made what he alleged was a libellous remark about 1MDB.

He said a recording of the speech was uploaded by Chan himself and/or his agents on YouTube and Mediarakyat website under what he claimed was a libellous heading.

Najib said the recording of the speech contained words that referred to and related to him and defamed him and the individual known as the 'prime minister' and must have referred specifically to him (Najib).

Najib claimed that the defamatory words in normal circumstances meant, among other things, that the plaintiff had robbed the people of their money with regard to 1MDB transactions and, as such, the plaintiff was someone who could not be trusted and not qualified to hold public office.

He said the publication of the defamatory words had damaged his reputation, which would continue for years because the recording of the speech could be accessed widely and easily throughout the world via the Internet, blogs, forums and websites without any restriction and could be reshared.

As such, Najib claimed for general damages, exemplary damages, costs and an injunction to prevent the first and second defendants or their agents from publishing further the defamatory words against him.