By John Donovan
The email printed below from Shell Malaysia whistleblower Dr John Huong (right) to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that the High Court judge dealing with the defamation action brought against Dr Huong by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, told Shell that “they should sue John Donovan in the UK”.
Since that course of action was not one Shell lawyers wished to pursue, Shell eventually had to settle with Dr Huong. Shell lawyers had also undermined their case by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge. In other words, Shell had perverted the course of justice.
Shell had terrorised Dr Huong to the extent that he had to use bodyguards, two of whom were present to protect him when he went to court on 15 July 2004, as stated in his email to us the same day. His house and family were also guarded as a result of certain sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huong’s children.
The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which has spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?
All of the whistleblower information is being published again on the same website by the same publisher but this time backed up with related correspondence, which previously was privileged and could not be published until after the litigation had been concluded.
Shell senior management was sufficiently irate to institute collective legal proceedings by EIGHT RDS companies when it was just the whistleblower comments that had been published. Imagine how angry Shell top is now, exposed as incompetents, recklessly spending shareholder funds on foolhardy litigation against the wrong person and unwilling to sue the party – the Donovans – who actually published the alleged defamatory comments, which in fact were true.
EMAIL DATED 12 February 2007
Dear Mr Trevor,
The following are some of the facts.
1. John and Alfred Donovan jointly own, operate and publish in their website on a daily basis. I also agree with the Judge that when Shell takes issues with what were and are currently published in the website, ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK’.
2. John and Alfred Donovan are not my agent and/or servants and therefore I cannot undertake the suggestion to cooperate in checking with them an arrangement for a teleconferencing from the UK. In the past I was trying to be helpful and cooperative with my lawyer Mr. Eric Siow to produce a draft affidavit for which Shell picked on me and served me interim ex-parte injunction which was corrected to inter-parte injunction and served on me as a surprise.
3. Furthermore, Malaysia has diplomatic relations with UK and if shell takes issue wanting to cross examine John Donovan, an alternative way for Shell is to conduct the cross examination at the Malaysian Embassy in UK – all expenses incurred for which Shell is to pay.
4. As I have mentioned to you earlier by telephone conversation, the last submission of Shell, for example in paragraph 2 had accused me of unaccounted absence from work and for insubordination. This is flawed and untrue because the unaccounted absence is an allegation resulting from Shell’s failure to conduct an investigation into an alleged misconduct. In addition Shell lawyers had said that there was an insubordination, a serious misconduct, for which I was never charged at the domestic inquiry. The case concerning misconduct is still ongoing and I cannot see how Shell lawyers can make such allegations to churn out injunctions.
5. I agree the injunctions made against me are hanging over my head for far too long amounting to human right abuses and need to be disposed off quickly so that we can begin the main trial accusing me of defaming Shell’s good name.
6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.
Dr. John Huong
RELATED ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower