THE APPLICATION

This is an application by the plaintiffs for an injunction before trial to restrain the defendant from further publishing of allegedly defamatory words contained in a letter dated 8.4.97 sent by the defendant or his agent to one Diamondlux Industries Sdn Bhd for the attention of the 1st plaintiff and with the 2nd plaintiff as the subject matter of the heading of the said letter. The said letter is reproduced herewith:

"Our Ref: LD/LM/971202/

8th April 1997

Diamondlux Industries Sdn Bhd

Lot 09-02-05, 09-03-05 & 09-04-05

Jalan 3/109F

Danau Desa Business Centre

Taman Danau Desa

Off Jalan Klang Lama

58100 Kuala Lumpur

ATTN: MR TO KAM FOO

Dear Sir

RE: MAXPRISE SDN BHD

Reference to the above, we enclose herewith the balance of the money minus the printing cost (official). Our office have wrongly minus the total cost as shown in the invoice No. 128296 from KL Management & Secretarial Services.

We are extremely disappointed and unhappy with your unethical and unprofessional attitude in how you conduct your business.

We have done and spent all the time, work and stationary to compile the company profile and cost estimate during the formalisation of the company. We decided not to bill you for all the expenses as we do not wish to have any business dealings with you from now on so as not to tarnish Lumino Design's name. Since Lumino Design has resigned from the company, you have no right to use our company name for any of your future business. Lumino Design is therefore not liable in this company.

We therefore insist you or your secretary send us a copy of your revised Form 24, Form 44 and Form 49 with Lumino Design's name deleted in any part of your company.

Yours faithfully

Sgd.

LEE HING

c.c. M/s KL Management & Secretarial Services"

THE PREAMBLE TO THE APPLICATION

It is alleged that some of the words contained in the said letter are defamatory of the plaintiffs and as a consequence thereof have injured the plaintiffs' character, credit and reputation in their trade and that they have been brought to public scandal, odium and contempt.

The defendant has denied these allegations and a defence was filed on 9.9.97 to the plaintiffs' claim and this was amended on 27.10.97.

THE ISSUE

The parties are in agreement that the single issue which requires the determination by this Court is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction as set out in Enclosure 3 based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

THE PLAINTIFFS' CASE

The plaintiffs, through their solicitors, demanded, by way of a letter, an apology, an assurance and an undertaking that the defendant would not repeat the publication of the said defamatory words as contained in the said letter. The defendant replied through its solicitors denying that the said words were defamatory and contending that they were written with no intention of malice. The plaintiffs thus filed this suit for general damages and limited the claim to RM2,000,000.00, for an injunction to restrain the defendant (as in Enclosure 3) and for interest and costs. The plaintiffs anchored their claim on the said letter and asked the Court to draw the usual, natural and inferential meanings attributable to the said words. The plaintiffs argued that the said defamatory words in the said letter were published extensively to Diamondlux Industries Sdn Bhd and to all their employees who have access to the said letter because there would be publication to a secretary or a clerk of a letter sent to the business premises and not marked 'private'. Further, since the defendant had admitted in Enclosure 6, being the affidavit in reply to oppose this application, that a copy of the said letter had been copied to KL Management & Secretarial Services Sdn Bhd (KLMS), it must therefore follow that the said defamatory words had been published to the employees of KLMS.

Referring to the plea of justification raised by the defendant the plaintiffs argued that the burden therefore rested upon the defendant t