We refer to the article entitled Estate workers petition chief justice on alleged irregularities written by Kevin Tan and published on your website at 7.54pm on Monday, April 8, 2002.

We act for Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd and Syarikat Jeleta Bumi Sdn Bhd, the plaintiffs and former employers referred to in the article. We are instructed by our clients to write this note to you.

Our clients wish to correct a number of grossly erroneous statements made in the article for the benefit of your readers who are not familiar with the legal process.

The plaintiffs are owners of the estate land where the defendants were provided with housing. The defendants are among those workers on the estate land who were offered generous ex-gratia compensation and alternative housing packages when the land was sold to a third party for development.

Whilst a majority of workers have agreed to accept the compensation packages and vacate the land, the defendants have refused to do so without just cause or reason. The defendants have been given notice to vacate their quarters since last year and are currently occupying the plaintiffs land without licence.

The defendants were served with the Writs of Summons in the plaintiffs claim for possession of the land since as early as Feb 28, 2002. The plaintiffs case was fixed for hearing of an injunction on March 19, 2002 but none of the defendants had made themselves known to counsel for the plaintiffs or the court interpreter nor had any of them entered appearance when the case was called up in the Judges Chambers on March 19, 2002. As such, counsel for the plaintiffs had obtained an adjournment of the hearing to April 8, 2002 in order for the defendants to retain solicitors and/or enter their appearance.

This was conveyed to a group of people who claimed to be the defendants when met outside the Judges Chambers on March 19, 2002. Counsel for the plaintiffs also conveyed to this group that unless appearance was entered within the time stated in the Writs of Summons that had been served on them much earlier, judgment in default of appearance would be obtained. Charles Hector & Co only notified the plaintiffs solicitors that they were acting for some of the defendants on April 5, 2002.

Judgments in default of appearance were in fact obtained against 22 of the defendants on March 26, 2002 after the expiry of the time limited for appearance to be entered in accordance with provisions under the Rules of the High Court, 1980. This is, of course, unrelated to the absence or presence of the defendants at court on March 19, 2002.

We cannot confirm whether an ex-parte injunction against the demolition of the workers quarters on the estate land has in fact been obtained by 26 of the defendants as we have todate not been served with any papers although notice has been given to solicitors representing the defendants that we represent Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd and its subsidiaries and have instructions to accept service.

In conclusion, there is no alleged irregularities in this case. It is mischievous and highly defamatory to say that a lawyer representing the plaintiffs misled the defendants. It is not true that the plaintiffs obtained default judgment on March 26 to demolish the houses occupied by the defendants in Bukit Tinggi on the ground that they were not present for the March 19 court hearing. It is certainly not true that the land in question belongs to the defendants who are in fact illegal squatters on the land. It is not true that the defendants should be given reasonable time to comply with a judgment of court, whether it be 30 days or otherwise.