The judgment clarifies the elements of defamation and the burdens of proof regarding defenses of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

[1] All these aforesaid appeals were heard together as they involved a similar fact situation and bearing in mind all three appeals were arising from a cause of action in defamation, involving the same impugned letter. These appeals were disposed on 2 February 2015. For the purposes of this appeal, we shall refer to the parties as they were described in the High Court.

Facts Common To All Three Appeals

[2] Kelab Golf Sultan Abdul Aziz (KGSAS) is a proprietor Club (the said Club). The proprietor owner of the said Club is Maddusalat Berhad. The said Club's facilities include inter alia 27 holes USGA class Golf course which was fully lighted. The plaintiff was appointed Vice Captain of the competition, rules and handicap committee of the said Club. To manage and administer the said Club, Maddusalat Berhad had entered into a Trust Deed dated 10 June 1993 with Maybank Trustees Berhad. Under the said Trust Deed, Maybank Trustees were the Trustees. The duties and Power of the Trustee are spelt out in clauses (11) and (17) respectively in the Trust Deed. Under clause of the Trust Deed, Maddusalat Berhad and the Trustees must ensure that a liaison council be established for the purposes of liaising with the trustee with regards to any breach of the covenants in the Trust Deed by Maddusalat Berhad; and according to the 4th Schedule in the Trust Deed, the Liaison Council shall consist of 7 members as follows:

(a) Chairman to be elected by the members.

(b) A secretary to be appointed by members.

(c) 5 committee members to be appointed by members.

[3] At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on the 8th day of August 2010, the validity of some of the proxies attending, became an issue. Twenty five (25) members of the floor voted for the adjournment of the AGM whilst thirteen (13) others voted otherwise. Upon the majority vote the chairman adjourned the meeting and together with the 25 members left the meeting room. The AGM was however continued by the 13 other members which included the Plaintiff.

[4] The said 13 members elected 8 members for the position of members of the present liaison council replacing the previous liaison council. The defendants had instructed their solicitors to issue a letter of demand dated 14 December 2011, through their solicitors and published defamatory words (as held by the learned judge) against the plaintiff. The full text of the impugned letter is found in the grounds of judgment of the learned Judge Puan Hadhariah Syed Ismail at p 13 in the appeal no 948.

[5] The aforesaid impugned letter and the imputations it contained forms the basis of all three appeals. It is also to be noted that the defendants herein and other defendants (130 of them) had filed a civil suit 22NCVC-417-04/2012 against the plaintiff and the liaison council for breach of duty and or negligence on part of the plaintiff and the liaison council but the said suit was struck out as being frivolous and vexatious and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Appeal In B-02(NCVC)(W)-948-05/2014

[6] In this appeal, the learned Judge sustained the claim of the plaintiff for defamation and rejected the defendant's plea for justification, fair comment and privilege. We are of the view that the learned judge had quite exhaustively dealt with the issue as to whether the impugned letter was defamatory and found so and we have no reason to disagree with her ladyship. The general burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the impugned letter carried defamatory imputations as set out in the statement of claim and the learned Judge should find as a fact the meaning conveyed. In determining the meaning of the words, the Judge must reflect and decide on the meaning conveyed. As this exercise would be a finding of fact and law, the learned judge had aptly decided the issue at pp 24 to 30 of her grounds