[1] This appeal raises, among two others, a simple but crucial issue relating to proof of the contents of documents filed in the agreed bundle of documents - Bundle A. That issue is simply this:

Whether the contents of documents filed in Bundle A documents, in the context of O 34 r 2 Rules of 2012, are required to be proved as to their truth by the defendant in a defamation action?

[2] The High Court at the trial had found against the Appellant/Plaintiff in their defamation suit against the Respondent/Defendant and in reaching her conclusion the learned Judge considered the aforesaid issue and answered the same in the negative and consequently found that the Respondent/Defendant was entitled to rely on the defence of justification.

[3] This appeal is against the aforesaid High Court decision. We heard the appeal and has seen it fit to reserve our decision in view of its importance to the conduct of litigation in Courts. We have since given further consideration to respective submissions of counsel and now we give our decision and reasons.

Background Facts

[4] The Appellant is the developer of the Amcorp Trade Centre(ATC), a complex which comprises of a 5-storey retail mall known as Amcorp Mall, two 18-storey office towers namely Amcorp Tower and PJ Tower and a 27-storey tower block, Menara Melawangi.

[5] The Respondent, being an owner of a unit in the ATC, registered and became a member of the Amcorp Trade Centre Owners & Tenants Association (ATCOTA) from 12 January 2008.

[6]The Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (Act) came into force in April 2007 and pursuant to the aforesaid Act, the Joint Management Body (JMB) of the ATC was formed, consisting of the owners and the developer.

[7] At the 1st annual general meeting held on 8 April 2008, twelve members were elected to the Joint Management Committee (JMC). The Respondent was one of the elected twelve members with the Appellant being the developer becoming an automatic member of the JMC under s 11(2) of the Act.

[8] The Respondent for reasons stated in his letter of resignation dated 9 September 2008 resigned as a member of the JMC.

[9] Premised on the contents of the letter of resignation, the Appellant sued the Respondent for defamation. The Respondent defended the suit on two grounds, namely justification and qualified privilege.

[10] For clarity, the letter of resignation is reproduced herein:

[11] The offending paras are as specified in paras 14, 16 and 24 in the Amended Statement of Claim. (impugned words).

High Court Decision

[12] The learned Judge from the outset held that the impugned words in the letter of resignation are defamatory in nature and her reasons are set out in paras 15 and 16 of her grounds which are as follows:

15. I find that the impugned statements was insinuating that the Plaintiff had used its agents to obtain a considerable number of proxies and therefore this enabled the Plaintiff to control the election of Joint Management Committee (JMC) members at the first Joint Management Board (JMB) meeting on 8 April 2008.

16. Further, in my view, the impugned words in the Resignation Letter when read in the whole or in one more combination thereof in their natural and ordinary meaning, or alternatively when read in their entire context, would meant and would be understood to mean that the Plaintiff is guilty of dishonourable, deceitful, unworthy, unscrupulous and/or unbefitting conduct. Hence, I accept the Plaintiff's submissi