PUTRAJAYA: Celebrity chef Datuk Redzuawan Ismail (Chef Wan) has withdrawn his appeal to contest a decision ordering him to pay RM150,000 in damages to his ex-son-in-law, Gavin Edward O'Luanaigh, for defamatory social media posts.
The Federal Court's three-judge panel, led by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, struck out the application and ordered Chef Wan to pay RM5,000 in costs to O'Luanaigh.
The other judges on the panel were Federal Court Judges Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais.
During the proceedings, Chef Wan's lawyer Nur Adilah Nabilah Abdull Jamal, informed the court of the withdrawal.
O'Luanaigh's counsel, Nur Khidmah Huzaisham did not object to the withdrawal but requested costs to be awarded.
With this withdrawal, the Court of Appeal's order for Chef Wan to pay RM150,000 in general, aggravated, and exemplary damages to O'Luanaigh remains upheld.
Nur Adilah later confirmed to the media that Chef Wan has already made the payment to O'Luanaigh.
On June 20, the Court of Appeal allowed O'Luanaigh's appeal, ruling that Chef Wan's social media posts were defamatory toward him.
The court also issued a perpetual injunction preventing Chef Wan from making further defamatory statements against O'Luanaigh and ordered a five per cent annual interest on the judgment amount from the date of filing until full settlement.
O'Luanaigh, who embraced Islam and is known as Salahudin Ghaffar, married Chef Wan's daughter, actress Serina, in 2010. The couple divorced in August 2017.
He filed the defamation suit in February 2021, claiming that eight of Chef Wan's social media posts were defamatory toward him and his current wife.
In his defence, Chef Wan argued that his statements were true, constituted fair comment, and were protected by absolute and qualified privilege, asserting they were made without malice.
On May 11, 2023, the Shah Alam High Court granted a partial injunction, restraining Chef Wan from publishing any further defamatory remarks about O'Luanaigh and ordered him to delete the eight disputed posts.
High Court judge Rozi Bainon, however, held that the statements were not defamatory, nor were they published with malicious intent.