For statements to be defamatory, they must carry an implication that lowers the plaintiff's reputation among right-thinking members of society, assessed objectively in context.

Introduction

[1] The five appeals herein relate to a decision of the High Court given on 31 January 2014 after a full trial dismissing the plaintiff's claims for damages for defamation against the Auditor General of Malaysia (Appeal No 146), The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Bhd (Appeal No 810), Guang Ming Ribao Sdn Bhd (Appeal No 811), Berita Harian (Appeal 812) and Sin Chew Media Corporation Bhd (Appeal No 813).

[2] On 20 June 2014, the Court of Appeal ordered that the five appeals to be consolidated and heard together. In this judgment the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Court below.

The Salient Facts

[3] The plaintiff is in the business of carrying out quality control (QC) tests on X-ray machines, CT scanners and X-ray machine operators.

[4] The plaintiff was at the material time the holder of a Class H licence and is registered with the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) to carry out, amongst other things, quality checks, certification, testing and commissioning of ionizing radiation equipment and its facilities as required by the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984.

[5] In 2006, the plaintiff was engaged by General Electric International to prepare the following reports:

i. Report on Testing & Commissioning General Electric PET-CT Scanner at Putrajaya Hospital;

ii. QC Testing and Commissioning for Computed Tomography at Putrajaya Hospital;

iii. Performance Testing & Commissioning of one unit of General Electric PETrace Cyclotron at Putrajaya Hospital; and

iv. Report on Testing & Commissioning General Electric PET-CT Scanner at Pulau Pinang Hospital.

[6] The aforesaid testing and commissioning reports were subsequently submitted by the plaintiff's clients to the Ministry of Health ("MOH") for technical compliance and commercial compliance.

[7] On or about 29 August 2008, the Auditor General published the following documents:

i. A report prepared in the National Language entitled "Laporan Ketua Audit Negara Tahun 2007 - Aktiviti Kementerian/ Jabatan dan Pengurusan Syarikat Kerajaan Persekutuan" ("the AG's Report");

ii. A synopsis of the AG's Report prepared in the English language entitled "Auditor General's Report 2007 - Synopsis Auditor General's Report on the Activities of Federal Government Ministries/Departments 2007" ("Synopsis of AG's Report").

[8] On or about 29 August 2008, the Auditor General released and distributed the AG's Report to various newspapers in the country. A press release was posted by the Auditor General on the official website of National Audit Department.

[9] Newspaper articles referring to the AG's Report or the Synopsis of the AG's Report were published to members of the public by The New Straits Times, Guan Ming Ribao Daily, Berita Harian and Sin Chew Daily.

[10] The publications complained of concerning the plaintiff are set out below. The impugned words in question are:

Appeal No 146 - Auditor General of Malaysia

[at p xxxii of the AG's Report]

Selain itu, syarikat yang dilantik oleh kontraktor untuk membuat pengesahan terhadap kualiti dan keselamatan PET CT Scan tidak mempunyai lesen di bawah bidang berkaitan mengikut kehendak s 13(2) Akta Pelesenan Tenaga Atom (Akta 304).

[English translation]

Besides this, the company appointed by the contractor to verify the quality and safety of PET CT Scan has no licence in the related field according to s 13(2) of the Atomic Energy Licence Act (Act 304).

[at p 478 of the AG's Report]

20.4.6.4. Seksyen 13(2) Akta Perlesenan Tenaga Atom (Akta 304) menetapkan hanya orang yang berkelayakan dan yang mempunyai lesen sahaja boleh menggunakan bahan radioaktif, nuclear atau radas penyinaran. Semakan Audit mendapati Syarikat Allied