Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.
By John Donovan
In 2004, EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively took legal action against Dr John Huong (above), a former Shell production geologist who blew the whistle on the reserves scandal and other nefarious activities carried out by Shell executives in breach of the much proclaimed Shell General Business Principles.
Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison in Malaysia and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.
An email printed below from Dr Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that a Malaysian High Court judge dealing with the litigation 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, after 6 years of litigation, had to settle with Dr Huong to stop the case from going to trial. Shell lawyers had undermined their situation by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge.
That was not the only action that perverted the course of justice.
During the course of the litigation, Shell 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 sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huongs children.
The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?
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 Shells 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 Shells good name.
6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.
Dr. John Huong
More Information, including legal documents…
*We now know from Shell internal documents the company was obliged to supply to us following an application under the UK Data Protection Act, that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against our website. See Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009. Shell was concerned about the airing of “internal laundry” online. The documents also reveal sinister undercover activity against us by Shell spooks on a global basis in an effort to trace our sources.