Back
2006 MarsdenLR 2403
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATO V KANAGALINGAM – Appellant
Versus
DAVID SAMUELS & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: S3 (S7)-22-89-1996]
[1] This is a defamation suit by the plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor, against the defendants for libel. The plaintiff claims damages in the sum of RM100 million including aggravated and/or exemplary damages.
[2] The words complained of by the plaintiff were published in a feature art entitled'Malaysian justice on trial' in 14 November 1995 issue of the International Commercial Litigation magazine.
[3] The words complained of by the plaintiff are set out in para 6 of the statement of claim. They are as follows:
6. On pp 10 to 14 November 1995 issue of the International Commercial Litigation (hereinafter referred to as'the Magazine'), in a feature art entitled'Malaysian justice on trial' (which art was the cover story for that issue, and was highlighted on the front cover of the Magazine), the First Defendant wrote and published, the Second, Third and the Fourth Defendants published, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him in the way of his said profession and in relation to his conduct therein the following defamatory words:
[As the feature art is a long article, I have set it out separately in the Schedule to this Judgment.]
7. The said words and illustration complained of in Paragraph 6 hereof in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean:
(1) That the plaintiff was guilty of corruption, or the attempted corruption of the Malaysian judiciary on an habitual basis for the purpose of obtaining special favours for his clients in litigations;
(2) That by so doing, the plaintiff had undermined confidence in the whole system of justice in Malaysia;
(3) That the plaintiff had lied to Judge Vohrah on 19 August 1995.
[4] The first Defendant at the material time was a staff writer of the said International Commercial Litigation magazine published by the fourth Defendant.
[5] The second Defendant was the editor of the said magazine.
[6] The third Defendant was the editorial publisher of the magazine.
[7] The fourth Defendant was at the material time the proprietor and publisher of the magazine.
[8] The defendants have not entered appearance. In fact they have not submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court.
[9] In his written submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiffsubmitted among others the case of Insas Bhd & Anor v. David Samuels & Ors, [2005] 1 MLJ 115.
[10] I have dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
[11] My grounds are as follows.
[12] First, I find that the plaintiff's pleading is defective. As the art is a long article, the plaintiff, besides pleading the whole article, should have also, in addition, pleaded the particular words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs in the art which, when read in the context of the whole article, are defamatory to the plaintiff in the manner as pleaded. Instead, in the present case, the plaintiff merely pleaded the whole article. In Scott v. Fourth Estate [1986] 1 NZLR 336 Williamson J said (at p 339-340):
... it must be a rare case where a Plaintiff can plead a whole art without particularizing the passages in the articles that he complains of. It may be appropriate to plead the whole art in order to claim that certain passages or libelous statements take their meaning from the article, as a whole, but in order to focus the dispute it is important that the allegedly defamatory passages be sufficiently identified.
[13] The plaintiff has not pleaded any legal innuendo. Thus the plaintiff is relying on inferences to be made from certain words or sentences or paragraphs in the article. But the plaintiff must plead the words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs on which he is inviting the Court to make the inferences suggested by him. It is not the duty of the Court on its own volition to speculate and to pick out the words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs and to make out a case for the plaintiff, a case that fits his statement of claim, particularly where the plaintiff is basing his claim on a long article.
[14] Second, the
