The principle of fair comment protects individuals who publicly express opinions on matters of public interest, and the doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of previously adjudicated issues.

[1] This is the Defendant's Notice of Application ("Application") filed on 21 August 2014 to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Amended Statement of Claim ("Amended SOC") under O 18 r 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC ").

Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff is an Advocate and Solicitor.

[3] The Defendant is a sports journalist cum online blogger He is the owner and operator of a blog known as "Foul" at the Internet link page http://hareshdeol.blogspot.com / ("the Defendant's blog").

[4] The Plaintiff filed another action ie Civil Suit No 23NCVC-101- 08/2012 in the High Court in Malaya, Kuala Lumpur ("Suit 101") [see Dato' Mohamad Bustaman Abdullah v. Malay Mail & Anor, , and exhibit HD-3 of Defendant's Affidavit in Support ("AIS")] against Malay Mail and the journalist, TK Letchumy Tamboo, regarding a Malay Mail article entitled "Judge walks out as questions turn personal"("the Malay Mail Article").

[5] This Court in Suit 101 had on 8 November 2013 held that the words complained of are defamatory of the Plaintiff. However, the defendants were found not liable for defamation of the Plaintiff in view of the defendants' defence of fair comment of a publication in the public interest, without malice.

[6] On appeal by the Plaintiff, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal on 26 March 2014 (see Order of Court of Appeal in exhibit HD-4 of Defendant's AIS). The Plaintiff did not obtain leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the said decision.

[7] The present case is the Plaintiff's action against Haresh Singh a/l Chain Singh ("the Defendant") for defamation for the following publications on the Defendant's blog on 27 June 2012:-

a) Republishing the Malay Mail Article;

b) Hyperlinking the Malay Mail Article to an article, "Ethics vital for lawyers" written by Jack Wong Kin published on The Star Online on 27 June 2011 ("the Star Article");

c) Hyperlinking to a Youtube videoclip entitled "Hooligan lawyer assaults client" ("the Youtube video clip") which had inspired the Star Article. The Defendant published the words "HD: Not cool, not cool at all" below the Youtube videoclip;

d) Hyperlinking the above publications to the Plaintiff's personal profile in the website of the Plaintiff's legal firm, www.bustaman.com ("the Plaintiff's personal profile").

[8] The Defendant is also alleged to have said to one George Heng in the lift in the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex ("in the lift"), after his cross-examination as a witness in Suit 101 by the Plaintiff, "What stupid questions coming from a stupid lawyer" ("the Oral Statement").

(See exhibits HD-5 and HD-6 of Defendant's AIS for the Star Article and the Youtube video clip respectively).

The Law

[9] The law is trite. The Court will only strike out a Writ and SOC where it is a plain and obvious case that the action cannot be sustained and ought to be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC . (see Hap Seng Consolidated Bhd v. Darinsok Pangiran Apan & Ors, [2014] 1 MLJ 335 , and Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd ; ; [1993] 2 AMR 1969).

Court's Decision Given On 17 September 2014 Regarding

Enclosure 38

[10] The Defendant's Application is allowed. Costs of RM5,000.00 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant forthwith.

Grounds Of Decision

[11] The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is therefore scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and an abuse of the Court's process under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the ROC .

[12] The reasons are as follows:-

The Plaintiff's claim is based on the following averments in the Amended SOC that in the Defendant's blog entry, the Defendant had publ