Defamation occurs when false imputations affect a person's reputation; courts require the plaintiff to prove defamatory content, reference to them, and publication by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

Azizan Md Arshad JC:

Introduction

[1] This court had on 27 October 2022 allowed the Plaintiff's claim against all the Defendants for tort of defamation with costs. This is an Appeal against the decision of this court. This judgment contains the reason for my decision.

[2] The Plaintiff was the only witness on his behalf and the Defendants have called 7 witnesses. The parties are referred to as they were in the High court. The Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor, practicing under the name of Messrs Subramaniam and Shafiq.

[3] The 1st defendant ("D1") is the Senior Claims Manager of the 3rd defendant which process claims arising from motor and non-motor insurances policies.

[4] The 2nd defendant ("D2") was the Head of Claims Division and Seniors Sales Consultant in the 3rd defendant's company until 20 September 2019.

[5] The 3rd defendant ("D3") is an Insurance Company under Companies Act 1965 and is the current employer of the D1 and previous employer of the D2.

The Cause Papers

[6] The parties have filed the following cause papers:

(a) Witness Statement of Siva a/l M Shamugam [WSPW1]

(b) Witness Statement of Sufaizah Binti Shukor [WSDW1]

(c) Witness Statement of Anita Kaur [WSDW2]

(d) Witness statement of Lim Wen Jack [WSDW3]

(e) Witness Statement of Jayapragash Amblavanan [WSDW4]

(f) Witness Statement of Christy Marcella Joseph [WDPW5]

(g) Witness Statement of Zamri Ali Hassan [WSDW6A]

(h) Supplementary Witness Statement of Zamri Ali Hassan [WSDW6B]

(i) Witness Statement of Frances Joycelyn Nathan [WSDW7A]

(j) Supplementary Witness Statement of Joycelyn Nathan [WSDW7B]

Background Facts

[7] The Plaintiff alleged in the Statement of Claim ("SOC") that an e-mail dated 15 December 2017 containing defamatory words was published to several persons, which include employees of D3 and also the panel solicitors and the same e-mail was carbon copied to D2 too.

[8] The word published by D1 is as follows:

"Subject:

Subramaniam & Shafiq"

"It has come to our attention that the above lawyer is assessing claims without the Defendant lawyer appointed. If you do come across such situations, please enquire with the court interpreter who are the insurers and to go on record if Allianz are the insurers on record. We require your help in the above."

[9] The Plaintiff in essence pleaded that this impugned e-mail published by the Defendants arose or came about from a suit filed in Kulim Sessions court, inter alia, Civil Suit No: A53KJ-126-07-2017 ("Kulim Sessions Suit"), wherein to take things a little further, in this suit too, the Plaintiff filed a Recovery Proceeding at the Georgetown Sessions court Civil Suit No: PA-B52-06-12-2017. However, at around the same time too, the Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons ("OS") at the Penang High court. The Plaintiff filed the OS at Penang High court because D3 did not comply with the statutory requirements of the Road Transport Act 1987.

[10] The Plaintiff claims that such words, in their true meaning and/or by innuendo, would imply that the Plaintiff's conduct as an advocate was improper. The solicitor is sceptical because it violates all operating written laws. He is most likely also assessing the 3rd defendant's claim for fraud. Most notably, no lawyers have yet been appointed to represent the insured or driver of the motor vehicle.

[11] Plaintiff also contends that, first and foremost, the Defendants agree and admit in their pleadings that the author of the impugned e-mail is the D1. There was also publication of the impugned e-mail to D3's panel of solicitors and other advocates and solicitors. Secondly, the defences of justification and qualified privilege are heavily relied upon by the Defendants, wherein they have pleaded that the impugned e-mail was published by D1 pertaining to the Georgetown Magistrates Suit and further that it was done in the course of D1's employment with D3 and also that it was done in the discharge of D1's legal and/or contractual duty. In the Georgetown Magistrates Suit, JID was entered a