The classification of documents in defamation trials must accurately reflect the parties' agreement, as mistaken categorization can unjustly overturn established findings.

JUDGMENT

Azahar Mohamed CJM:

Introduction

[1] The appellant sued the respondent for defamation. The courts below came to different findings. The High Court after a full trial, allowed the appellant's claim. The Court of Appeal took a contrary view. The Court of Appeal set aside the order of the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The appellant was granted leave to appeal on four questions of law. Hence, the present appeal before us, which in substance arose from the reversal by the Court of Appeal of the decision of the High Court. After hearing the parties, we adjourned the matter for our consideration. We now give our decision and the grounds for the same.

[2] We will describe the parties in this judgment as they appeared in the High Court, namely the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.

Background Facts

[3] The background facts are uncontroverted. We will only highlight in the following paragraphs the pertinent facts in so far as they are relevant to the issues that arise for our decision in this appeal.

[4] At all material times, the plaintiff is the developer of a piece of commercial property known as the Amcorp Trade Centre ("ATC"), which comprises the PJ Tower, Amcorp Tower, Melawangi Tower and Amcorp Mall in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

[5] The defendant at the material time was a member of the Amcorp Trade Centre Owners and Tenant Association ("the Association"). His late wife purchased a unit in the Melawangi Tower.

[6] The plaintiff's cause of action in defamation is premised on two documents, namely:

(a) a letter dated 25 June 2008 entitled "Complaint on the conduct of AGM on 8 April 2008 and request for EGM" ("the letter"); and

(b) an e-mail dated 13 October 2008 entitled "Amcorp Amended Letters" ("the e-mail").

[7] The dispute between the parties arose this way. The plaintiff, pursuant to the statutory requirement under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ("2007 Act"), carried out an Annual General Meeting ("AGM") on 8 April 2008 to elect office holders of the committee members of the Joint Management Body ("JMB").

[8] Apparently not every stakeholder was happy with the election results of the AGM. Not long after the AGM, the letter was published and distributed. At the same time, an official complaint was sent to the Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya ("MBPJ") and the Commissioner of Buildings ("COB").

[9] A meeting was called by the COB pursuant to the aforesaid complaint and the COB, exercising his power under the 2007 Act, called for an Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") of the JMB on 19 October 2008.

[10] In the meantime, the plaintiff filed an application for judicial review in respect of the said decision to hold the EGM and on 16 October 2008, the Shah Alam High Court granted an injunction order for the postponement of the EGM until the decision on the application for judicial review is known.

[11] In view of the injunctive order, MBPJ cancelled the instruction to hold the EGM. It was during this period the e-mail was issued and distributed.

[12] Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced in the High Court the current action under appeal against the defendant in relation to a series of defamatory statements made by the defendant through the letter and the e-mail. To complete the facts, the plaintiff, amongst others, claimed the following:

(i) An injunction to prevent the defendant from further publishing or distributing similar defamatory statements;

(ii) The defendant publish a complete and unconditional retraction of the defamatory statements in two main newspapers, one in English and another in Bahasa Malaysia, within the terms and conditions agreed upon by the plaintiff's solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff;

(iii) General damages amounting to RM5,000,000.00 from the defendant, arising from the publication of the defamatory statements.

Decision Of The High Court

[13] The first poi