A claim for defamation is unsustainable if the impugned statement is not published to a third party, and absolute privilege applies to communications made in the course of judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 9)

Suzana Muhamad Said JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Defendant to strike out the Plaintiff's claim (encl 9) under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of 2012 (ROC). The Plaintiff had also filed an application to strike out the Defendant's defence (encl 11) under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of ROC. This Court dealt with encl 9 first, because the determination of this encl 9 will determine the entire suit.

Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiff and Defendant are both lawyers.

[3] The basis for the Plaintiff's claim is an action for libel against the Defendant, concerning one letter dated 18 December 2020 from Messrs. Kevin & Co, (the legal firm that was representing the Defendant at that time) to Messrs. Valerie Chong & Co (the legal firm that was representing the Plaintiff at that time) (Impugned Letter).

[4] The Plaintiff in his Statement of Claim (SOC) stated that the Impugned Letter contained impugned defamatory words. The impugned wordings are:

"Our client states that your client took advantage of our client in your client's office. Our client regrets to have not lodged a police report against your client who portrays himself as a senior lawyer, a committee member of the Catholic's Lawyers Society and a member of the disciplinary committee of the Bar.

Our client welcomes your client's decision to expose the incident which happened in the library as our client will prove to Court as to how your client being a man of his age and standing has taken advantage of a junior lawyer. Our client also feels that it is time that the public at large is made aware of your client's true identity whilst hiding behind the facade of a prudent, pious and integrous man, as our client is aware that there are other individuals (ladies) who has somewhat equal complaints pertaining to your client, whom our client is making attempts to secure as a witness to corroborate our client's testimony pertaining to your client's character towards young woman."

[Impugned Words]

[5] The Impugned Letter was a correspondence in the matter of the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Civil Suit No: WA-A52NCvC-545-07/2020 (KLSC Suit) to a claim for breach to marry and fraud filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. Initially the claim was filed at the Kuantan Sessions Court but was later transfered to Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. Subsequently, on 27 July 2022, the KLSC Suit was dismissed with cost.

[6] The Plaintiff's SOC was filed on the 13 May 2022 and the Impugned Letter was dated 18 December 2020. It was not disputed that 17 months later, the Plaintiff filed this instant Suit in regards to the Impugned Letter.

[7] The Impugned Letter was a 'Without Prejudice' correspondence between the solicitors representing the Defendant and the Plaintiff on the pending KLSC Suit as can be seen in the subject title of the Impugned Letter.

Plaintiff's Contention

[8] The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had published the Impugned Words to Messrs Valerie Chong & Co and its staffs. The Plaintiff pleaded that the impugned defamatory words were in their 'natural and ordinary meaning', meant and were understood in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Defendant's Contention

[9] The Defendant denied that the Impugned Words were defamatory and denied any publication either in fact or in law to constitute a cause of action for defamation. The Defendant contended that the Impugned Letter was a reply to a letter by the Plaintiff's Solicitors dated 17 December 2020. It was written in bona fide to refute the Plaintiff's accusations against the Defendant. Thus, the Impugned Letter was not intended to be read by other lawyers and staff of Messrs. Valerie Chong & Co, except those who are related to the KLSC Suit.

[10] The Impugned Letter as reproduced (Plaintiff's SOC/Lampiran A):

[11] The Impugned Letter was a reply to a letter by the Plaintiff dated 17 December 2020 as reproduced below:

Findings And Analysis

Striking out under Order 18 Rule 19 O