The plaintiffs failed to prove defamation as the defendant was not linked to the publication, and the counterclaim was dismissed due to the illegal nature of the gambling contract.

JUDGMENT

Azizah Nawawi JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two (2) appeals emanating from the decision of the learned High Court Judge to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages for libel, and the defendant's counterclaim for the recovery of credit lines totaling USD1,500,000.00 and the refund of the rolling rebates of USD193,800.00 owed by the 1st plaintiff to the defendant.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to in their respective capacities in the High Court.

The Salient Facts

[3] The plaintiffs are businessmen in Sarawak, whilst the defendant is a tour agent and a junket who made arrangements for gamblers to gamble at casinos.

[4] The defendant was appointed as a promoter by Huang Yu Kiung, who operates his business under the style and name of Huang Group for Naga World Limited. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement termed as STG Operator Incentive Program Agreement' dated 1 March 2014 between Naga World Limited and Huang Yu Kiung, Huang Yu Kiung is to bring in patrons to gamble at the Naga Casino, Cambodia.

[5] In December 2014, one Mr Ting Sing King (hereinafter referred to as "TSK") organized a trip to Cambodia. There were five persons involved in the trip, TSK, 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, and Lee Chew Sing.

[6] The 1st plaintiff, TSK, and the others, flew to Cambodia from 8 January 2015 to 10 January 2015 for the purpose of gambling at the International Floor at Level 6, Naga Casino Cambodia, and they had checked into the Naga Casino Hotel and had left their passports with the hotel.

[7] During their stay in Phnom Penh, TSK, Dato' Lee Chew Sing and the plaintiffs did gamble at the Naga Casino.

[8] On or about 17 January 2015, the plaintiffs found that, in the Facebook account with the username of "Ani Ta", there was a post containing the photograph of the newspaper page in Mandarin language, purportedly from "Sin Chew Daily News" newspaper. The purported newspaper page contained a half-page advertisement with the following words ("the First Said Words") accompanied by the passport sized photographs of the plaintiffs (English translation:

"The above 3 persons have debt owed to our company, you are required to appear personally within one week to resolve it, failing which action according to law will be taken against you and bear the consequences. Contact number: 012796976."

[9] The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had, on or about 18 January 2015, written and published and/or caused to be written and published in Mandarin language, in his WeChat account and/or his agent or servant's WeChat account and on Facebook, the same half-page advertisement appearing in the "Sin Chew Daily News" newspaper. This is the Second Said Words.

[10] The plaintiffs took the position that the above words were calculated to disparage and to attack the plaintiffs as to their characters and positions in the general society and business community, both locally and internationally. As a result, the plaintiffs claim that their reputations have been seriously injured, and that they have suffered anxiety, embarrassment, and distress, and have suffered losses and damages.

[11] Therefore, the plaintiffs had brought a defamation suit against the defendant.

[12] In the High Court, the defendant had counterclaimed against the 1st plaintiff in respect of three (3) lines of credit in the sum of USD1 million, USD500,000.00, and rolling rebate of USD193,800.00, which the defendant claimed was/had been utilised by the 1st plaintiff for the purpose of gambling at Naga Casino, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Decision Of The Learned High Court Judge

Plaintiffs' Claim For Libel

[13] Having heard the evidence and submission from the parties at trial, the learned trial Judge held as follows:

(i) Although the plaintiffs' photographs and personal details appeared to be printed in the "Sin Chew Daily News" that was published through Facebook and WeChat, there was no further evidence produced by the plaintiffs during the trial to convince the Court that the said Face