IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. W-02(NCVI)-[XXX]-20[XX]/202[XX]

BETWEEN

ABC SDN BHD
(trading as XYZ)
... APPELLANT

AND

PQR
... RESPONDENT

---

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

(Filed pursuant to Rules 82(1) & 83, Rules of Court 2012)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Appellant (Defendant in the Court below) appeals against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dated [insert date] whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Appellant's striking out application dated [insert date] under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC") in respect of the Respondent's Statement of Claim dated [insert date] in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. [insert suit no.] ("the Suit").

1.2 The learned Judge erred in holding that the Respondent's defective pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action and/or were not scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and/or were not an abuse of process.

1.3 The appeal raises pure questions of law on the fundamental principles of pleadings in defamation actions and mandatory compliance with the ROC.

2. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL

2.1 The Respondent (as Plaintiff) claims against the Appellant in defamation arising from alleged statements published in Bahasa Mandarin on [platform/social media/date].

2.2 Critically, the Statement of Claim pleads only an English translation/summary of the alleged defamatory words, without setting out the exact verbatim words in the original language (Bahasa Mandarin).

2.3 The entire Statement of Claim is drafted and filed in English, without compliance with the mandatory language requirements under the ROC.

2.4 On [date], the Appellant applied to strike out the Statement of Claim, inter alia, on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous and/or prejudicial, and constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court.

2.5 By the impugned decision at (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) , the learned Judge dismissed the application, erroneously holding that the English translation was sufficient.

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Ground 1: Failure to plead exact verbatim words in original language (Bahasa Mandarin) – No reasonable cause of action / Scandalous pleadings [Order 18 r.19(1)(a) & (b) ROC]

3.1 The learned Judge erred in law in holding that the Respondent's pleadings, which rely solely on an English translation/summary/non-original version of the alleged defamatory statements, disclose a reasonable cause of action.

3.2 In a defamation claim, the Plaintiff must plead the exact verbatim words of the alleged defamatory statements in their original language (here, Bahasa Mandarin), as these words constitute the material facts essential for the Court to determine whether they are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and establish a cause of action (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3.3 Pleadings based solely on translations (English), summaries, or non-original sources are fundamentally insufficient, prejudicial and scandalous, as they deprive the Court and Defendant of the precise words required to assess defamatory character, innuendo, or defence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3.4 The absence of the original verbatim words means the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, warranting striking out in limine (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 2: Non-compliance with mandatory language requirements under ROC – Defective / Abuse of process [Order 18 r.19(1)(b) & (d) ROC; Order 3 ROC]

3.5 The learned Judge further erred in law in failing to strike out the Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the mandatory language requirements under the ROC, which require all documents filed in Court to be in the national language (Bahasa Melayu).

3.6 The Respondent's English-language Statement of Claim, without the required Bahasa Melayu version or certified translation of the original defamatory words, renders the entire pleading defective, embarrassing and an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3.7 Failure to adhere to these mandatory ROC provisions vitiates the pleadings ab initio, necessitating striking out without leave to amend in circumstances where amendment cannot cure the fundamental defects (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Ground 3: Erroneous exercise of discretion / Failure to apply settled principles of pleadings

3.8 The learned Judge misdirected herself on the principles under Order 18 r.19 ROC by requiring the Appellant to establish a higher threshold than mere non-disclosure of a cause of action or defective pleadings.

3.9 The defects are incurable as the original verbatim words and compliant language cannot be retroactively imputed without prejudicing the Appellant and abusing court process.

4. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Appellant seeks:

(a) That the appeal be allowed with costs here and below;

(b) That the High Court's decision dated [insert date] be set aside in its entirety;

(c) That the Respondent's Statement of Claim be struck out in its entirety with no order as to amendment;

(d) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

5. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF HEARING

30 minutes.

Dated this [day] day of [month], 202[XX].

[LAWYER'S NAME]
Solicitor for the Appellant
[Address]
[Tel/Email]
(DX [no.])

To:
The Registrar
Court of Appeal
Putrajaya

And to:
Solicitors for the Respondent
[Details]