Defamation claims must substantiate that statements are defamatory; defenses of justification and fair comment apply when statements are true or represent fair opinion.

Having decided whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, the next step in the inquiry is for a Court to ascertain whether the words complained of are in fact defamatory. This is a question of fact dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case." (Emphasis Added).

[20] Applying the above principles to the present case, the Court finds that the four statements, published in the original context of the article, in their natural and ordinary meaning do impute to the plaintiff by:

The 1st statement

That the plaintiff, as an advocate and solicitor, had used impolite and/or non-courteous words during the cross-examination of Dato Sieh Kok Chi ("Dato Sieh") (DW2) over the questions revolved on Dato Siehs disabled daughter thereby depicting and implying the plaintiff's professional personality and character as that of a rude and inconsiderate lawyer. This caused everyone who were present in Court, including the High Court Judge ("the judge"), to be uncomfortable;

The 2nd statement

That the judge had asked the plaintiff to move on with another question but the plaintiff persisted with his earlier line of question thereby depicting and implying that the plaintiff completely ignored the judges direction and is an advocate and solicitor who is impolite and non-compliant of the judges directions;

The 3rd statement

That the plaintiff's impolite and non-compliant conduct caused the judge to become angry and/or upset so as to cause the judge to suddenly leave and/or walk out of the Court room, without uttering a word;

The 4th statement

That the plaintiff was using an improper phrase and putting questions to the witness and trying to indicate that the government is the owner of the design until he was told by the judge to refrain from doing so.

[21] The words complained of in the four statements would expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the mind of a reasonable man or would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally [see Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman (supra), and Syed Husin Ali (supra)].

[22] This was confirmed by the evidence of the plaintiff's friend, Mansur Bin Ghazali (PW2) who read the article in the Malay Mail newspaper. PW2 stated that the article by Malay Mail had pictured the plaintiff as a rude, difficult, and inconsiderate lawyer, who was disrespectful of the judge and stubborn in his attitude and behaviour in Court, and a very uncontrollably aggressive person. The plaintiff had caused the judge to get angry and made the judge leave the Court. PW2 had known the plaintiff for 39 years and he had never known the plaintiff to be an aggressive, rude or impolite person. When PW2 met the plaintiff about a week later, PW2 asked the plaintiff in jest, about how come the plaintiff managed to make a judge walk out of Court.

[23] Vedhagiri Vallipan @ Omar (PW3), who read the article online on the 1st defendants website, stated that he had known the plaintiff for almost two and a half years now as his mentor friend and tennis partner. According to PW3, the article implied that the plaintiff is an insolent, rude, insistive, stubborn and aggressive lawyer in Court, and had misbehaved in Court until even the judge left the Court. The judge even told off the plaintiff to use proper phrases when questioning the witnesses.

[24] On 2 July 2012, PW3 emailed the plaintiff asking him about what was happening now that the judge