RK Nathan J:

Facts

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant in respect of an article published by the defendant alleging that the article concerned was defamatory of the plaintiff. The publication was headlined as follows:

A DIRECT-SALE COMPANY IS INVESTIGATED AND BANNED FROM

SUPPLYING GINSENG PRODUCTS

The subheading reads:

TO INVESTIGATE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE

The direct sale company referred to in the said article was South-South International Sdn Bhd. In its statement of claim the plaintiff contended that the impugned article was however understood to refer to and concerned the plaintiff since the plaintiff was one of two companies which were raided by officers of the Ministry. It is also a fact that the plaintiff had in the present pleadings averred that the facts contained in the impugned article were widely known by readers of the Malay Mail, New Straits Times, Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press, who reside and work in and around the Klang Valley. In its pleadings the plaintiff averred that the said articles, in their natural and ordinary meaning and in the innuendoes contained therein, were understood to contain 22 different explicit meanings. For example, meaning no. (1) was "that the plaintiff was operating illegally"; meaning no. (10) was "that the plaintiff was marketing, selling or distributing the product after the expiry of their shelf-life"; meaning no. (20) was "that the plaintiff was not beyond using improper, illicit or underhanded tactics to undermine the investigations of the enforcement division of the Ministry or pervert the course of the said investigations into the plaintiff's business"; meaning no. (22) was "that the plaintiff, by reason of it not having obtained renewal of its direct selling licence, the usage of the outlawed pyramid system and all of the matters hereinabove complained of, was generally an irresponsible, unlawful and unreliable corporate citizen not worthy of any credit, recognition and standing". The plaintiff claimed damages for libel, an injunction and costs.

Earlier Suit No. S5-23-30-96 (The S5 Suit)

The plaintiff had also filed an earlier suit (the S5 suit) for defamation against three defendants, namely, a reporter of the Malay Mail, which is a publication of the 3rd defendant, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd, and the 2nd defendant being the Group Chief Editor. This suit alleged that the defendants had published several articles defamatory of the plaintiff. An article dated 22 April 1996 bore the headline "LICENCE NOT RENEWED" and alluded specifically to the plaintiff herein being "in trouble after Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry found that it is operated even after its licence expired". A feature article dated 29 April 1996 was headlined "STOP SUPPLY ORDER" and bore a subheading "DIRECT-SELLING FIRM TOLD TO CEASE SUPPLY OF GINSENG PRODUCTS". Another article appearing in the New Straits Times on 26 April 1990 was headlined "REPORT ON HARASSMENT OF OFFICERS SURPRISES ABU HASSAN". Finally another article appearing in the Malay Mail on 21.5.96 was headlined "DIRECT-

SELLING COMPANY WITH EXPIRED LICENCE" "PROBE INTO

GINSENG FIRM DONE". It also bore a sub-headline "SEIZED RECORDS GIVEN TO HQ".

Again in its pleadings the plaintiff averred that the said articles in their natural and ordinary meaning and in the innuendoes contained therein were understood to contain the identical 22 different explicit meanings as set out in the present suit before me.

My learned brother, James Foong J, had on 9 October 1998 delivered a written judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

The Issue

The issue before me was whether I ought to hear this suit or stay the action pending the outcome of the plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of James Foong J.

Findings Of The Court

Whilst I agree that the defendants in each of the two suits are different, the plaintiff cannot escape the conclusion that it had relied on the identical 22