The court established that defamatory statements made in quasi-judicial contexts may be protected by absolute privilege, but failure to provide adequate defenses can result in liability for defamation.

Introduction

[1] This is the Plaintiff's action against the Defendant for libel and slander. The Plaintiff, Dato' Kamaruzaman bin Muhammad Ariff, claims the Defendant, Puan Sri Rasidah@Rashidah binti Abdul Rahman, had falsely and maliciously defamed him in a series of libellous and slanderous statements published on different occasions.

[2] The Plaintiff is an Advocate and Solicitor. At all material times, he was a senior partner of the law firm Messrs. Kamaruzaman Arif Amran & Chong ("KAAC"). The Defendant is the founder and chairman of the foundation, Yayasan Sekebun Bunga ("YSB").

Background Facts

[3] In 2012, Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad ("PNSB"), a Selangor State Government company owned by Menteri Besar Incorporated, agreed to sell to YSB, PNSB's right to the lease of certain units in the Al Marwa Tower in Mekah, Saudi Arabia ("the Saudi Properties").

[4] In the Sales and Purchase Agreement dated 6 March 2012 ("SPA") between PNSB and YSB, PNSB was represented by KAAC. The SPA was executed under seal by both parties. The Defendant as a director of YSB, was one of the witnesses before whom YSB's common seal was affixed. The evidence shows that four copies of the SPA executed by YSB were forwarded by a law firm, Messrs. Hafidz & Co, to KAAC on 30 December 2011. And that KAAC had forwarded the four copies of SPA to PNSB for their execution on 5 January 2012. A copy of the stamped copy of the SPA was forwarded by KAAC to YSB on 8 March 2012.

[5] Pending completion of the SPA, YSB had appointed agents to manage the Saudi Properties, to account for the rental received and to pay PNSB 80% of the net rental received from the Saudi Properties.

[6] YSB did not pay PNSB any of its share of the rental received from the Saudi Properties. Consequently, in July 2013, PNSB commenced a civil suit at the Shah Alam Sessions Court Suit No B52-157-07/2013 (the "Civil Suit") against YSB and two other companies, which PNSB alleged the proceeds of the rental received from the Saudi Properties were channelled to.

[7] YSB also failed to pay the balance of the purchase price due under the SPA. After sending numerous letters of demand to YSB, on 20 August 2013, PNSB, through its solicitors, KAAC, terminated the SPA and forfeited the deposit paid YSB. PNSB also demanded YSB deliver vacant possession of the Saudi Properties. The evidence shows that PNSB in an email dated 1 August 2013, had instructed KAAC to terminate the SPA with YSB since the Completion Date and Extended Completion Date had expired under the SPA. PNSB had stated in the email that they will forfeit the deposit paid by YSB as stipulated under cl 6.1.3(b) of the SPA.

[8] After PNSB had terminated the SPA and forfeited YSB's deposit, the Defendant made the following publications against the Plaintiff. The impugned statements in these publications are the subject matter of this action by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

(i) Police Report

[9] On 2 December 2013, the Defendant made a police report against the Plaintiff ("the police report"). In the police report, the Defendant alleged the SPA was dated late and stamped late. She also alleged that the contents of the SPA were altered because the initial appearing on each page of the SPA was not hers.

(ii) Reply to DB

[10] On 4 February 2015, the Defendant filed a complaint of misconduct against the Plaintiff to the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("the DB").

[11] The Defendant's complaint to the DB was not about the allegations s