MIGRANT workers’ rights activist Andy Hall had refuted the two defamation suits levelled against him by a foreign workers’ recruitment firm director, claiming the email and news report published did not have elements of defamation.
According to a report by Free Malaysia Today, Hall, in his defence filed through legal firm Messrs Rama Rozi & Associates last week said that Embun Karisma Resources director Datuk R Muthusamy “is put to strict proof to back his claims” over the second suit.
On April 15, Muthusamy has filed two suits against Hall over alleged defamatory statements.
He is seeking a total of RM60 mil in damages in the suits filed by the legal firm of GK Sritharan & Co at the High Court in Johor Bahru.
In the first suit, Muthusamy alleged that Hall sent an email on Jan 6 to not less than 40 individuals, including companies, Government departments and NGOs, accusing him of “bribing” Hall with a consultancy offer at ATA, a leading electronics manufacturing service company.
In the email, he said, Hall claimed that Muthusamy had asked around on “how much it would cost to pay off or silence Andy Hall”.
Muthusamy said he sent a letter of demand to Hall on Feb 14, but accused the latter of making another alleged defamatory statement titled “See you in court: Hall dares libel claimant in Dyson force labour controversy”, published in Focus Malaysia on Feb 17.
Muthusamy is also seeking aggravated and exemplary damages and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Not an eminent person
In his counter against Muthusamy’s suits, Hall said that the email mentioned was “a reply to Emily Fernandez”, copied to Government departments, NGOs and other authorities “as a matter of courtesy as they were in the email thread”.
He added a major portion of the contents in the email were reproduction of Muthusamy’s own letter.
“Hence, the alleged defamatory statements were not sensational, scandalous or offensive, or published with malice.
“The statement (in the email), read contextually or in isolation or in its ordinary meaning or by innuendo, did not defame the plaintiff as claimed,” Hall mentioned.
In addition, the activist said the email had little impact on Muthusamy as the latter was not an eminent person and the recipients had the right to be informed on migrant workers’ plight.
“In any case, Muthusamy’s reputation was not damaged among his friends and working colleagues as the email was not published in public,” Hall quipped. – May 5, 2022
