GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

1. I had, on 29 in January 2008, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision in dismissing the defendant's striking out application n Enclosure 6.

2. Before proceeding to lay down my reasons for doing so, I would briefly state the facts.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for damages for libel in the sum of RM1 billion; aggravated damages for libel; exemplary damages; 8% interest per annum on the amount of damages; an injunction to restrain the defendants and/or agents and servants from further publishing the defamatory words; a retraction of the draft press release of the defamatory words; a public apology and costs.

4. From the amended statement of claim, it is pleaded that between the end of November and early December 2003, the plaintiff's chief executive officer and another representative had approached the defendant's carrier and wholesale division to undertake a business venture to resell the defendant's telecommunications services to the plaintiff's customers on a simple reseller basis.

5. The plaintiff pleaded that subsequently there were numerous meetings between the representatives of both parties that culminated in the defendant delivering the 1st consignment of SIM cards to the plaintiff on or about the end of December 2004.

6. The plaintiff pleaded that a simple reseller agreement to embody the existing contractual relationship between the parties was prepared and forwarded for execution to the defendant.

7. However, the said reseller agreement was never finalized because the defendant's newly appointed chief financial officer was concerned with certain regulatory issues regarding the plaintiff's license to operate as the defendant's reseller of telecommunications services.

8. In furtherance of the reseller business arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff had proceeded to launch MCAT Generation Service Package on 28.4.2005.

9. In pursuance of the said launch, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant had forwarded 45,000 sim cards to the plaintiff in which 200 of the said sim cards were activated by the plaintiff with the defendant's knowledge and consent.

10. In July 2005, the plaintiff had advertised its MCAT Gen Mobile Commerce Package including the prepaid package.

11. After said advertisement, the plaintiff pleaded that there were subsequent meetings with the defendant's representatives to discuss the fact that the reseller agreement was yet to be executed by the defendant and further business arrangements between the parties.

12. In effect, the plaintiff is pleading that the defendant's representatives had, up until October 2005, represented by verbal communication via several meetings and written communication via emails and letters that the reseller business arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant would culminate in a formal executed reseller agreement.

13. In furtherance of the various meetings and discussions with the defendant's representatives, on 13.10.2005, the plaintiff launched an advertisement in the media regarding their prepaid package services.

14. The consequent result of said launch and in breach of the reseller agreement and further agreement, the defendant published a draft press release in the media on 14.10.2005 denying any association or contractual relationship with the plaintiff or the plaintiff's services and republished the same draft press release in the media on 17.10.2005 and 19.10.2005. The defendant had also called a press conference towards the same effect.

15. It is the words in the draft press release published by the defendant denying the connection to the plaintiff and its services that is the basis of the plaintiff's claim in libel against the defendant.

16. We now come to the basis of the defendant's striking out application. The defendant avers that the words relied by the plaintiff as the basis of libel are in no way defamatory of the plaintiff nor could said words contain or me