The failure of a plaintiff to rebut critical assertions in a defamation claim can result in the dismissal of the claim as unsustainable and frivolous.

JUDGMENT

Julie Lack JC

[1] This is a Notice of Application dated 29 September 2020 (Enclosure 51) filed by the Defendant pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012(ROC) to strike out both the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim dated 7 September 2018 against the Defendant.

Brief Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant on 7 September 2018 for defamation.

[3] The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both members of the Federation of Alumni Association of Taiwan Universities ("FAATUM") via their respective Associations. The Plaintiff is registered with the Chung Yuan University (Taiwan) Alumni Association Malaysia ("CYUAA") while the Defendant is registered with the Taiwan University Alumni Association Negeri Sembilan (TUAANS).

[4] On 17 April 2016 the Plaintiff was elected to the position of President of the FAATUM in the 22nd Election and Appointment of General Committee Members of FAATUM. The Defendant was appointed the Vice President at the same AGM. The Registrar of Societies wrote to FAATUM via letter dated 16 December 2016 that the status of registration of CYUAA had been revoked since 8 June 2015.

[5] Since the registration of CYUAA was not valid this essentially meant that the Plaintiff's nomination and subsequent election as President of FAATUM was also invalid.

[6] The Plaintiff claims that he only discovered this on 16 December 2016 while the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff had known about the deregistration of CYUAA from the onset but had deliberately failed to inform FAATUM of the revocation of CYUAA remaining intentionally remained silent in order to be elected as President of FAATUM.

[7] Re-election was carried out in 2017 but the Plaintiff failed to retain his position as President. He again failed in his bid in the following year in 2018.

[8] The Plaintiff then filed this civil suit against the Defendant for circulating defamatory statements about him in the WhatsApp Group named "Taiwan University Alumni Association Negeri Sembilan (hereinafter referred to as "the said WhatsApp Group").

[9] This is not the first time the Defendant in this suit has filed an application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim against him. There was an application filed earlier on 28 January 2019 pursuant to O 18 r 19 ROC 2012 to strike out the Plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed in the Statement of Claim against the Defendant.

[10] The said application was allowed by the learned High Court Judge on 29 March 2019 but was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal on 24 September 2019. The claim reverted back to this Court to proceed with full trial.

[11] On 10 March 2020, the Defendant filed an application under O 20 r 5 ROC to amend his Statement of Defence. The reason for the application to amend was essentially due to the fact that the Defendant only recently discovered that the actual perpetrator of the defamatory words was not him but a third party. This Court allowed the application for amendment with costs to be borne by the Defendant.

[12] That led to the Defendant's instant Notice Application to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim.

Cause Papers

[13] This Notice Application (Encl 51) is supported by the Defendant's Affidavit in Support dated 29 September 2020.

[14] There is an Affidavit in reply filed by the Plaintiff's solicitor. Ms Karen Tan Ching Shi dated 30 November 2020. To date the Plaintiff has not personally filed any Affidavit in Reply to the Defendant's Affidavit in Support preferring to rely on the solicitors said Affidavit in Reply dated 30 November 2020.

[15] This was followed up with an Affidavit In Reply by the Defendant dated 11 December 2020.

[16] This Court also referred to and considered the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 7 September 2018 as well as the Amended Statement of Defence dated 23 September 2020, the Plaintiff's Amended Reply to the Defendant's Amended Statement of Defence dated