Statements in police reports are protected by absolute privilege, preventing defamation claims against the maker, to encourage reporting crimes and uphold public interest.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 30 March 2011 which dismissed the appellants appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 28 August 2009. This Court had on 24 October 2011 granted the appellant leave to appeal on the following question:

"Whether statements in a police report are protected by the defence of absolute privilege and therefore no party can file a defamation suit against the maker of the police report in the Malaysian context?"

[2] In this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant, as they were in the High Court.

The Facts

[3] The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as follows: Both the plaintiff and defendant were at all material times shareholders and members of the board of directors of Billion Shopping Centre Sdn Bhd ("Billion") and its subsidiary or related company known as Billion Shopping Centre (Port Dickson) Sdn Bhd ("the company"). Beside the plaintiff and the defendant, there are two other persons who were and still are shareholders and directors of Billion and one other who was a shareholder and director but had since resigned as a director of Billion ("other shareholders and directors").

[4] In or about the end of 2005 and early 2006, the plaintiff, defendant and other shareholders and directors agreed to confront another shareholder and director of Billion, one Ang, on financial irregularities in Angs management of Billion and its related companies.

[5] Arising from the confrontation, Ang resigned from his position as managing director and/or executive director and/or director, in Billion and all its related companies and also offered to sell his shares to the plaintiff, the defendant and the other shareholders and directors.

[6] Upon Angs resignation, the defendant unilaterally declared himself as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Billion Group of Companies. The defendant was the managing director of Billion until his removal and replacement by one of the other shareholders and directors, Wong Chee Leong ("Wong"), in a board of directors meeting held on 14 March 2006 ("the 14 March 2006 Board Meeting"). At the 14 March 2006 Board Meeting, the plaintiff and the other shareholders and directors voted to replace the defendant with Wong as managing director arising from a disagreement with the manner in which the defendant took over full control of Billion and the related companies to the exclusion of the plaintiff and the other shareholders and directors, including employing his own son, Chin Keat Wen, as the head of internal audit and his friend, Lim Kea Aung, as financial controller.

Shah Alam High Court Suit

[7] On 12 April 2006, the defendant filed a derivative action against the plaintiff and the other shareholders and directors in the Shah Alam High Court vide Shah Alam Suit No MT3-22-404-2006 ("the Shah Alam suit") and applied for an injunction to restrain the directors of Billion from implementing the 14 March 2006 Board Meeting resolution to replace the defendant as managing director. The High Court allowed the defendants application. The defendant was accordingly reinstated as the managing director of Billion.

[8] On 3 October 2006, the Shah Alam High Court, after hearing submissions from both parties, set aside the ex parte injunction. The defendant accordingly ceased to be managing director of Billion with effect from 3 October 2006. On 13 October 2006, the defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for an Erinford Injunction. His application was dismissed.

[9] The defendant unsuccessfully