The lack of specific pleadings for defamatory statements and publication leads to dismissal of a libel claim.

(Enclosure 6)

Introduction

[1] This is the decision of this Court in relation to encl 6 which was filed by the defendant. The defendant sought in encl 6 to strike out the plaintiffs' claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the Rules of 2012 (hereafter 'the RoC').

[2] On 12 August 2021, this Court, after hearing the oral submissions and after reading the written submissions of the respective counsels, allowed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiffs' claim on the ground of O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the RoC.

The Plaintiff's Case

[3] The plaintiffs brought a libel suit against the defendant under the law of tort of defamation. The plaintiffs' averred the libelous statement(s) emanated from the defendant. The libelous statement(s) was in a minute recorded by the defendant entitled "Statement of Attendance" dated 5 October 2020 for a meeting held on 20 April 2019. The meeting was attended by the defendant and the plaintiffs and one Datuk Ghazali. After the meeting ended, the parties parted.

[4] On 4 February 2021, the 2nd plaintiff received a copy of the Bundle of Documents for a civil suit WA-22NCC-397-08/2020 at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur (hereafter the "KL High Court suit"). In the KL High Court suit, the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 7 others are being sued by one Dr Tawfique in relation to a power struggle over a company known as BWFW Medic Sdn Bhd The defendant here is not a party to the said action.

[5] A copy of the Statement of Attendance prepared by the defendant was included in the said Bundle of Documents, particularly TAB 36, for the KL High Court suit. The Statement of Attendance forms part of the documents for trial in the said KL High Court suit.

[6] The plaintiffs averred that the contents of the said Statement of Attendance, particularly the following paragraphs below, have defamed them:

"14. At this point, all three: Dato Ghazali, Mr Firdaus, Pn Aspalela raised their concerns about the integrity of Dr Tawfique and suggested ways to get him removed.

16. Mr Firdaus stated that he is familiar with "the likes" of Dr Tawfique as a con man and most likely will be able to find "dirt" on him. The first thing to do would be to question his role as the Executive Director and report him to immigration as Dr Tawfique cannot work in Malaysia.

17. Pn Aspalela advises Dato Ghazali to report his removal as CEO of BWFW Medic Sdn Bhd by Dr Tawfidue to the Industrial Relations Court for unlawful dismissal.

18. Mr Firdaus further advised Dr Khamsiah regarding the letter she received from Dr Tawfique stating his reasons and concerns about Dr Ghazali's role as CEO of BWFW Medic Sdn Bhd., to not answer it but wait until he provides his answers for her after he has done his investigations as there would be legal implications to the content of Dr Tawfique's letter.

19. I realize then that the objective of the meeting was to suggest and find ways to remove Dr Tawfique from his Executive Director role and provide that power to Dato Ghazali, on behalf of Dr Khamsiah."

(hereafter 'the impugned paragraphs)

[7] The defendant admitted preparing the Statement of Attendance, but denied the impugned paragraphs in the Statement of Attendance pleaded by the plaintiffs are defamatory in nature. The defendant also denied the said impugned paragraphs were published. The defendant relies on justification as her defence.

[8] The defendant's encl 6 sought this Court for an order to strike out the plaintiffs' action mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to plead in their Statement of Claim the necessary ingredients or elements in a cause of action that is premi