Utusan Melayu ordered to pay RM300,000 in damages to former PKNS general manager

High Court Judge Datuk John Louis O'hara made the decision after allowing the suit by Datuk Othman Omar, 56, as the plaintiff, against Utusan Melayu, which was named as the defendant.

O'hara ordered Utusan Melayu to pay RM250,000 in general damages, RM50,000 in aggravated damages, and five per cent interest from the date the suit was filed until the day of the judgment.

The court also ordered Utusan Melayu to pay RM20,000 in costs to the plaintiff, and allowed an injunction to prevent the newspaper from publishing or distributing similar defamatory statements against the plaintiff.

O'hara also allowed an application by counsel Mohd Izral Khairy, representing Utusan Melayu, for an interim stay for the newspaper to issue its withdrawal on the publication of the defamatory statements in two newspapers, and the lawyer would file an official request pertaining the matter on Oct 1.

In his judgment, O'hara said that there was malice committed by the defendant (Utusan Melayu) for publishing an article that was reckless, and the court found that the published article was defamatory.

He said that the journalist who wrote the article did not take reasonable steps to verify the truth, which was irresponsible.

"The court found that Utusan Melayu has failed to satisfy that it could rely on the defence of qualified privilege over the publication," he said.

On June 14, 2013, Othman filed a lawsuit alleging that the newspaper company had published an article entitled "It has been said a lot of controversies arose while he led PKNS - Othman's contract discontinued", on Jan 29, 2013.

In his statement of claim, Othman said the defamatory articles published in Utusan Malaysia, among others, meant that he was not qualified to be the general manager of PKNS, and chose to make controversial decisions against the Menteri Besar of Selangor at the time, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

In addition, Othman claimed that the statement also implied that he was dishonest, and mismanaged the finances of the corporation.

He claimed that the defendant had made defamatory statements without any clarification from his side, damaging his character and good reputation in public.