Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

(1) as against the first defendant, a sum of RM3 million;

(2) as against the second defendant, a sum of RM750,000;

(3) as against the third defendant, a sum of RM2 million;

(4) as against the fourth defendant, a sum of RM1 million;

(5) as against the fifth defendant, a sum of RM250,000;

(6) as against the sixth defendant, a sum of RM2 million; and

(7) as against the seventh, a sum of RM1 million.

[2] Of these, only the first, third, sixth and seventh defendants lodged appeals. Because of the order in which their respective notices of appeal were filed and because this Court heard these appeals together, it will be convenient to refer to the third defendant as "the first appellant", the seventh defendant as "the second appellant", the first defendant as "the third appellant" and the sixth defendant as "fourth appellant". To these appeals, the plaintiff is the sole respondent.

[3] There is one other matter that requires mention. It has to do with the delivery of pleadings. Of the appellants before us, only the second delivered a defence to the action. None of the others did. The importance of this fact will emerge when I come to deal with the course the case took and the attack that was levelled against the learned Judge in the way in which he handled matters at the trial.

[4] Encik Karpal Singh who appeared for the first and the second appellants vigorously, but with his usual courtesy, attacked the award made against his clients. He said it was too high and out of line with the usual trend of awards for plaintiffs in defamation actions. He also complained that the damages claimed had not been proved; the plaintiff merely alleging loss but proffering no evidence in support. Last, but not least, he criticised, what he termed the unholy haste, with which the trial had been proceeded with, which, he submitted, was an unsatisfactory feature of the case, warranting appellate interference.

[5] Encik Shamsul Baharain who appeared for the third and fourth appellants, quite apart from attacking the quantum of the award, also attempted to challenge the finding on liability; and this despite his clients' failure to deliver their defence to the action.

[6] These submissions I shall make mention of in full, when I come to deal with the merits of the appeals. But in order to appreciate them it is first necessary to recite some of the salient facts.

[7] The respondent, as found by the learned Judge (which finding has not been challenged in these appeals), is a well known, prominent and successful businessman in Malaysia and internationally. He brought an action against the instant appellants and the other defendants in the Court below claiming damages for defamation and for conspiracy to defame. His complaint was in respect of a series of articles appearing in a monthly business magazine called "Malaysian industry". At all material times, the third appellant was its Editor-in-Chief, while the first appellant authored one of the articles complained of. The second and fourth appellants are the printer and publisher respectively of the magazine in question.

[8] There is no controversy as to the defamatory nature of the articles in question. For the purpose of these appeals only the article authored by the first appellant is of relevance. It appeared in the issue of the magazine published for the month of October 1993. A coloured photograph of the respondent appeared on p 16 of that issue with the caption: "Vincent Tan: Warned journalists." The article carries the banner headline: "Press Manoeuvres" The passages complained of read as follows:

Other corporate figures acquire media organisations to further their own interests. Launched with great fanfare, The Sun faded swiftly, becoming a vehicle for