Special damages must be pleaded for slander claims, and statements made under qualified privilege at a statutory meeting are protected unless malice is properly alleged.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

[1] On 22 July 2024 this Court struck out the Plaintiffs claim because their pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The applications made by the Defendant Shanti Kumari and Defendant Padmanathan which were heard together were allowed and costs of RM10,000 were granted to each Defendant. In coming to its decision, this Court was minded to prevent an abuse of the Court process, amongst others. The Plaintiffs had lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of this Court 's decision concerning Defendant Shanti Kumari. No appeal lies against the decision against Defendant Padmanathan. The following stipulates this Court 's reasons for the said order.

[2] The suits initiated by the Plaintiffs against the respective Defendants were for slander. The Plaintiffs took offense to the following words uttered by the Defendants in an Extraordinary General Meeting held on 25 March 2023 (EGM) of One Menerung Management Corporation (OMMC). The Plaintiffs, who were not in attendance claimed that the following statements uttered by the Defendants were slander:

[3] All the parties are residents of One Menerung, No 1 Jalan Menerung, Bukit Bandaraya, Bangsar 59100 Kuala Lumpur. OMMC had initiated a legal action in 2017 against the Plaintiffs herein referred to as Suit 146 which was settled in February 2023. The substance of the suit pertained a water pump installed by the Plaintiffs which was fitted in the refuse chambers of the Plaintiffs' unit. According to the Plaintiffs, the OMMC had approved the said installation but thereafter issued a 'stop work order'. Be that as it may, Suit 146 and the Plaintiffs Counterclaim was withdrawn without any liberty to file afresh and the Plaintiffs were to be paid RM250,000 as full and final settlement.

[4] This was followed by the EGM in the same month where the settlement was raised and discussed. The Defendants were said to have uttered those statements above. There was no publication in this suit pleaded in the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim (SoC). The Defence by both Defendants too pleaded that the minutes of the EGM did not carry any record of the impugned utterances. Following that the Plaintiffs' Reply affirmed the position that the impugned utterances were uttered in the presence of others at the EGM.

Slander And Special Damages

[5] This Court was invited to consider the settled law that governs an action for slander which is not actionable per se, unless it directly resulted in special damage for the slanderous words, or if it fell within the permitted exceptions of ss 4 - 6 of the Defamation Act 1957 ( DA ). This Court ruled that those impugned utterances were not words spoken and published which imputed the unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl (s 4 ) or words calculated to disparage the Plaintiffs in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by them at the time of publication (s5 ). Neither were the impugned utterances calculated to cause pecuniary damage to the Plaintiffs and were published in writing or other permanent form (s 6(a) ). Unlike libel which is actionable perse, the Plaintiffs must plead the special damage suffered caused by the impugned utterances (see Tan Mei Yean v. Gooi Soo Hwa ).

[6] Through their SoC, the Plaintiffs had pleaded at para 30 a sum of RM130,000 that they had incurred to initiate this action (legal fees and their solicitors' disbursements) as special damages. This Court agreed with the submissions by the learned counsel for the Defendants that legal fees did not amount to special damages; in particular the costs of initiating this iitigation seven months ago. This Court also found as a fact pleaded that the costs of RM3,000 paid for a proxy were made prior to the EGM, not because of the impugned utterances by the Defendants. This Court was bound by the Federal Court 's decision in Golden Star & Ors v. Ling Peek Hoe & Anor & Another Appeal that addressed the necess