Court established that defamatory statements must be proven as such and addressed audience context; damages awarded for reputational harm.

Preliminary

[1] The plaintiffs brought this defamation suit against the defendant, with the defendant filing a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. This is the judgment rendered following the trial.

[2] There are two plaintiffs in this case, a husband and wife. The plaintiff is an airline pilot who holds the position of Captain with Malaysian Airlines.

[3] At the material time, the 2nd plaintiff was a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat ("PKR") and known in the political circle as 'Puchong Rani' since she lived in Puchong. Her educational background also includes a law degree.

[4] The defendant is a Malaysian politician. He became involved in politics in 1987 when he joined the Malaysian Indian Congress ("MIC"). In the twelve (12) years that followed, he joined PKR and rose to serve as its Member of Parliament for Padang Serai. He rejoined MIC in 2018 and became a member of its Central Working Committee ("CWC"). In 2021, he left MIC.

The Witness Evidence

[5] According to the 1st plaintiff ("PW2"), he has never met the defendant personally. The whole thing began when, on 4 June 2019, Murali A/L Ballah ("Murali" or "PW1"), a friend of the plaintiffs sent the 2nd plaintiff ("PW3") two picture messages ("the 1st and 2nd impugned publications") and a voice message ("the 3rd impugned publication") that allegedly contained defamatory statements made by the defendant to Murali about the plaintiffs, which were shown to the 1st plaintiff by the 2nd plaintiff.

[6] The plaintiffs then instructed their solicitors to issue a pre-action letter of demand to the defendant demanding that he:

(a) publishes a full and unequivocal retraction with an apology to be approved by the plaintiffs' solicitors before publication;

(b) undertakes not to repeat the publication of any words defamatory of or regarding the plaintiffs;

(c) compensates the plaintiffs for reputational and emotional injury; and

(d) pays all legal fees associated with this matter in full.

[7] So far, however, the defendant has not responded in any way to the pre-action letter. As a result, he has clearly ignored the demands.

[8] As for the 2nd plaintiff, she confirms the 1st plaintiff's testimony. In addition, according to the 2nd plaintiff, Murali received these three messages earlier that same day between 12.25 pm and 12.45 pm from the defendant's mobile phone number +60111093XXXX ("the defendant's mobile phone number") to Murali's mobile phone number +6019777XXXX ("Murali's mobile phone number"). It is alleged that the defendant first sent two picture messages, followed shortly thereafter by a voice message. This was affirmed in a statutory declaration prepared by Murali.

[9] The 2nd plaintiff further testified that Murali took a screenshot of the defendant's WhatsApp contact information page bearing the phone number +60111093XXXX as proof of where the two impugned publications originated from. The screenshot was sent to the 2nd plaintiff by Murali on 4 June 2019 along with the two picture messages. The picture messages consist of the 1st and 2nd impugned publications. The top picture carries defamatory words about the plaintiffs while the bottom picture contains only defamatory words about the 2nd plaintiff.

[10] In addition to analysing the plaintiffs' testimony, it is imperative to analyse Murali's testimony, as the source of all those allegations. Murali testified that the 1st and 2nd impugned publications, as well as the 3rd impugned publication, were received directly from the defendant. As a result, he screenshotted the impugned publications and