Lim Beng Choon J:

In this action, the plaintiffs are claiming against the defendants damages for libel in respect of the words contained in an article entitled 'British "diploma mills" step up sales racket' published by the defendants on p.4 of the issue of the New Straits Times dated 29 April 1985. The trial of this action is concerned with the usual, and in this case a very important issue as to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words complained of. The second issue is whether the defence of justification avails the defendants. The third issue is whether the defence of fair comment on matters of public interest likewise avails the defendants. The fourth issue of whether the defendants were actuated by malice will only arise where the answer of this Court to the third issue is in the affirmative because the defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is of no avail when it is shown that the defendants were actuated by malice in publishing the article.

At the trial, Counsel for the plaintiffs in the course of the examination-in-chief of PW1, one Mr. AFS Ford, the company secretary and director of education of the plaintiffs' company, attempted to elicit certain facts from the witness in order to sustain the contention that the defendants were actuated by express malice in publishing the article. Counsel for the defendants objected to such an attempt made by Counsel for the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs had not pleaded the facts relied on by them to show express malice. I upheld the Counsel's objection as I was of the view that in law, although in the publication of defamatory matters, malice is presumed but if it is sought to destroy the defence of fair comment on matters of public interest by an allegation that the defendant was actuated by express malice, particulars of the facts and matters from which such express malice is to be inferred must be pleaded (see Gatley on Libel & amp; Slander (8th Edn.) p.438 para.1064 and the Supreme Court Practice (1979 Edn.), Vol.1 at p.294 O. 18/12/20). Thereupon Counsel for the plaintiffs orally applied for an amendment to their statement of claim which I refused to accept. I suggested that if the plaintiffs wished to apply to amend its statement of claim they should do so by making a formal written application to amend. This the plaintiffs did and their application was approved by this Court. The defendants were accordingly allowed to amend their amended statement of defence in reply to the amendment of the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The plaintiffs were duly penalized with costs.

I should mention that the plaintiffs in their request for further and better particulars, required the defendants to set out all the facts upon which the defence of fair comment was based. The defendants duly responded and gave particulars of the facts relied on by them to sustain the defence of fair comment. I do not propose to set out the particulars given by the defendants as I will be referring to so much of the particulars presently, in so far as they are relevant.

The article published by the defendants in the New Straits Times on 29 April 1985 which the plaintiffs alleged was defamatory reads as follows:

British 'diploma mills' step up sales racket.

Penang, Sun - 'Diploma mills' based in Britain are advertising actively in Malaysia to sell their bogus qualifications, the principal of South-West London College, Lyndon H. Jones, said yesterday.

Mr. Jones, who is writing a series of articles to expose such organizations, said these 'diploma mills' sell all sorts of qualifications for a fee of STG1,200 or more.

He was speaking to reporters when paying a courtesy call on former Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman at his Jalan Air Rajah residence.

Mr. Jones who is also chairman of the London based Association of Business Executives ( 'ABE'), was on a three-day visit to Penang to brief Perkim-Goon students on management studies.

About 3,000 Malaysian students