A well-crafted 'half-truth' can constitute defamation if it misleads the audience regarding a person's character.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Judicial Commissioner of the High Court ("the JC") dated 23 June 2021 wherein the plaintiff's suit for defamation per Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No WA-23CY-10-03-2018 ("the Suit") was dismissed after a full trial. The plaintiff in the Suit (appellant before us) is Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong and the defendant is Mdm Seema Elizabeth Isoy. The JC ordered costs of RM80,000.00 (subject to allocator) to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The High Court's decision is reported as - Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong v. Seema Elizabeth Isoy, [2021] 7 AMR 186 (HC). For convenience, the appellant and respondent in this appeal shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant respectively.

The Issue

[2] The issue is whether the publication of a "half-truth" can constitute a false statement. In this regard, at para [9] of the Memorandum of Appeal dated 17 September 2021, the plaintiff has contended that the JC had erred "in law and/or in fact in failing to hold that the publication of a half-truth constitutes a false statement."

Parties

[3] The plaintiff is the chairman and founder of Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd ("Mayland") which developed Waldorf & Windsor Towers Service Apartments ("W&W").

[4] The defendant is a unit owner of property at W&W and was at various points in time, a committee or sub-committee member of the W&W Management Corporation ("MC").

Mayland Litigation

[5] Mayland and the MC were involved in several legal actions. W&W is and was involved in the following suits ("Mayland litigation") in which the opposing parties are Mayland, its related entities or individuals connected to the Mayland Group:

(a) Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No 22NCvC-460-2011 between Mayland and W&W Joint Management Body ("JMB");

(b) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No W-02(NCvC)(W)-n50-05-2012 between Mayland and the JMB;

(c) Federal Court Civil Application No 08(f)-260-04-2013(W) between Mayland and the JMB;

(d) Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: 22NCvC-13-01-2014 between various apartment owners and Mayland;

(e) Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No WA-22NCvC-298-06-2017 between a Mayland connected person and the MC;

(f) Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No WA-22NCvC-374-07-2017 between the MC and Mayland;

(g) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1918-09-2017 between Mayland connected persons and the MC;

(h) Kuala Lumpur High Court Application for Judicial Review No WA-25- 323-12-2017 between a Mayland connected person, the MC and Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur;

(i) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1454-07-2017 between a Mayland connected person and the MC.

[6] In relation to the Mayland litigation, various issues and matters between W&W and Mayland, its related entities or individuals connected to the Mayland group were litigated or are in the midst of litigation, including:

(a) the JMB successfully reclaiming a substantial portion of the 7th floor of W&W from Mayland who had been found guilty of fraud and/or false misrepresentation in obtaining the title to the same. Mayland was found to have perpetrated fraud and/or false misrepresentation at the land office and JUPEM (the Malaysian Department of Survey and Mapping);

(b) 47 W&W owners initiating a class action against Mayland seeking compensation for costs incurred in renovating the unfinished portion of the 7th floor of W&W;

(c) the MC claiming unpaid contribution of maintenance fees and sinking fund (approximately RM1 million) aga