In defamation cases, evidence must directly relate to specific allegations; irrelevant character evidence is inadmissible.

S Nantha Balan JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff's to strike out parts of the Defence filed by the Defendants. The application is made under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("").

[2] The issue here is whether in a defamation action, a defendant is entitled to plead and lead evidence on matters relating to the conduct, character and reputation of the plaintiff which are extraneous to the defamatory imputations in the relevant impugned publications.

[3] The main action is for defamation and is based on five (5) articles published by the First Defendant, who is the publisher of a Tamil Malar Newspaper known as "Tamil Malar". Besides the printed newspaper, the First Defendant also maintains an internet publication through Facebook, which shall be referred to herein as the Tamil Malar Facebook. The Second Defendant is the Executive Editor, shareholder, director and Managing Director of the First Defendant.

[4] The First Plaintiff and Second Plaintiff are husband and wife respectively and are directors and shareholders of the Third Plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965. The business of the Third Plaintiff is neatly described in para 4 of the Statement of Claim, where it has been pleaded that :

"The Third Plaintiff carries on business as providers of training and courses, specifically self-development and self-empowerment seminars and courses for the attainment of spiritual and material enhancement based on the principles of a form of yoga known as Rajayoga, which the First Plaintiff has modified and adapted to suit current times enabling it to be practiced by all."

[5] On various dates in December 2013, the First Defendant published in the printed form of the Tamil Malar newspaper, articles of and concerning the Plaintiffs.

[6] Thereafter on 6 February 2014, the First Defendant published an article in the Tamil Malar Facebook, of and concerning the Plaintiffs. For purposes of this judgment, I shall refer to all these articles collectively as "the impugned articles".

[7] The Plaintiffs contend that they have been defamed by the publication of the impugned articles. The Defendants have raised the defence of justification under s 8 Defamation Act 1957 and qualified privilege under s 12 of the . The defence does not raise a plea of fair comment under s 9 of the .

[8] In support of the plea of justification the Defendants have relied on various particulars to justify the imputations contained in the impugned articles. In a nutshell it is the case of the Defendants that the First Plaintiff (in collaboration with the Second Plaintiff) have used the Third Plaintiff as a vehicle to hoodwink gullible individuals to pay exorbitant fees to join the courses run by the Third Plaintiff of which the main person who is the purveyor of the teachings of yogic power is the First Plaintiff. The Defendants' allege that the First Plaintiff's yogic teachings or practices are deceptive and are a deviationist form of yoga which goes against and are injurious to the values of the spiritual teachings of "yoga" and "sittar" philosophy.

[9] It is further alleged by the Defendants that the Plaintiffs were hoodwinking the public to become their followers and that in the process, the First Plaintiff has enriched himself at the expense of gullible Malaysian Indians.

[10] The present application by the Plaintiff is to strike out para 12 of the Defence and all references to it in sub-para 24(i), 30(i), 36(i), 44(i), 50(i) and 55(ii) thereof. Para 12 of the Defen