Defamatory statements made in the presence of a third party constitute sufficient publication for a defamation claim, with damages awarded based on malice and reputational harm.

JUDGMENT

Jamhirah Ali JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the Appellant/Defendant's appeal against the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) decision dated 20 December 2022 in allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff's claim.

[4] The Defendant refuted the Plaintiff's claim in his defence. The Defendant pleaded that he never uttered the defamatory statements. In the alternative, the Defendant raised the defences of justification and qualified privilege with respect to the defamatory statements.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as they were at the Court below.

[3] The Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendant for defamatory statements uttered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the presence of a third party. The Plaintiff claimed that due to the defamatory statements by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had suffered damage.

[4] The Defendant refuted the Plaintiff's claim in his defence. The Defendant pleaded that he never uttered the defamatory statements. In the alternative, the Defendant raised the defences of justification and qualified privilege with respect to the defamatory statements.

[5] After a full trial, the SCJ allowed the Plaintiff's claim and inter alia, awarded general and exemplary damages of RM100,000.00 to the Plaintiff.

[6] Having heard the appeal, this Court dismissed the Defendant's appeal with costs.

Brief Facts

[7] In 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly established Hillstreet Edu Sdn Bhd (Hillstreet), with both serving as directors and shareholders.

[8] The Plaintiff, an Honorary Doctor in Social Work awarded by the University of Dayspring Theological Texas on 10 March 2018, served as the director of Hillstreet until 26 November 2019.

[9] The Defendant owns Gerbang Impian Holdings Sdn Bhd (Gerbang Impian), a company involved in construction-related work.

[10] Shortly after its establishment, it became clear that Hillstreet needed funding to operate. Despite its core business being in education, the Plaintiff and the Defendant mutually agreed that Hillstreet would take on construction projects to meet its financial needs at that time.

[11] The Defendant's friend, Shasindren Jagaswaren (Shashi), was the managing director of Versi Syabas Sdn Bhd (Versi Syabas), a company with a valid G5 license for construction projects. Since Hillstreet lacked the necessary license, it was intended that Hillstreet would secure construction projects through collaboration with Versi Syabas.

[12] In January 2019, Hillstreet, through Versi Syabas, secured a project for the renovation of a double-storey house in USJ (USJ Project). Versi Syabas' role in the project was limited to receiving payments from the client, Mr. Ramesh, and then disbursing payments to Hillstreet based on the progress claims submitted.

[13] Several months into the USJ Project, around September 2019, the Plaintiff realised that the project would not be completed within the initially expected time frame due to Hillstreet having underquoted the costs.

[14] The Plaintiff promptly informed the Defendant about the issue. In response, the Defendant requested a list of payments related to the USJ Project. Two days later, on 28 September 2019, the Defendant, via a WhatsApp message, acknowledged that Hillstreet had underquoted the project costs by RM48,000.00. In the same message, the Defendant also mentioned that he had asked Shashi to contribute additional funds for the USJ Project.

[15] On 1 October 2019, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to meet and discuss issues concerning the USJ Project (the Meeting). However, the Meeting location was unexpectedly changed from Hillstreet's college to the shared office of the Defendant's company, Gerbang Impian, and Versi Syabas. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had also invited Shashi to attend.

[16] When the Plaintiff arrived at the Defendant's office, the Defendant instructed him to wait in a meeting room. Shortly after, the Defendant stormed into the room with Shashi, throwing a file across the