The plaintiff failed to establish the essential elements of defamation, including that the impugned article was defamatory or referred to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 1)

Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] In a nutshell:

[1.1] This suit pertains to the defamatory allegation by the plaintiff against the defendant about an article published on 12 April 2021 entitled "Hidden Hands Behind Penny Stock Surge Under Scrutiny" concerning the authority's investigation into alleged market manipulation and assets shuffling of certain public listed companies.

[1.2] The defendant admits to publishing the impugned article but denies that the impugned words referred to the plaintiff or could refer to them. In its proper context, the article did not concern or defame the plaintiff. It did not, as alleged, impair the plaintiff in any way.

[2] On 26 March 2024:

[2.1] After considering all cause papers, evidence at the trial, and hearing parties' respective arguments, on a balance of probabilities, I found that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case and dismissed the claim.

[2.2] The plaintiff was ordered to pay a cost of RM35,000.00 to the defendant within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.

[2.3] Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal against my decision. My reasons are as follows.

[3] The witnesses at the trial are:

(1) Plaintiff: PW1: Roy Ho Yew Kee

(2) Defendant: DW1: Dato' Ho Kay Tat and DW2: Fong Wei Kuen Brief Facts

[4] In the present case:

[4.1] The plaintiff alleged that one of the paragraphs of the defendant's publication in "The Edge Malaysia" on 12 April 2021 had allegedly defamed the plaintiff in a special report found on pp 62-64 titled: "Hidden Hands Behind Penny Stock Surge Under Scrutiny". On p 62, 2nd paragraph, it was quoted as saying:

"The authorities, it seems, are after a group of individuals who control as many as 60 companies on Bursa Malaysia and appear to manipulate share prices and siphon out funds from these companies via numerous cash calls and subsequent acquisition of assets. Also being scrutinised are the 'asset shuffling exercises undertaken by many of the companies. There is also talk that they are allegedly involved in the legitimising of ill-gotten gains or money-laundering activities".

[4.2] The plaintiff was listed as one of the implicated companies in a schedule accompanying the impugned article.

[4.3] The plaintiff took the position that the said foregoing impugned paragraph, in its natural and ordinary meaning, is defamatory of the plaintiff that had been published by the defendant, giving the imputation, or meaning that the plaintiff:

(a) Unlawfully siphoning out funds from the company.

(b) Funding activities for unlawful purposes.

(c) Acquisition of assets for unlawful purposes.

(d) Legitimising ill-gotten gains; and

(e) Involved in money-laundering activities.

[4.4] The plaintiff argued that the impugned statement by the defendant was untrue of the plaintiff, whereby:

(1) On 14 April 2021, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant retract the impugned article with an apology or publish a clarification, an undertaking not to publish the defamatory statement further, but was refused.

(2) The defendant has no justification to publish the impugned defamatory statement.

(3) The defendant's disclosure that the source of information is 'as a source close to the SC' and 'another source' gives the impression that it is close to official sources and was accurate.

(4) Before publishing the alleged defamatory article, the defendant did not seek the plaintiff's side of the story or verify the information. The defendant did not afford the plaintiff any opportunity to refute the defamatory allegations.

[4.5] The plaintiff claims against the defendant for: (1) general damages, (2) exemplary damages, (3) interest, and (4) costs. The plaintiff also prayed for an injunction to restrain the defendant from further tortuous conduct.

[4.6] The defendant, in its defence:

(1) Admitted to publishing the impugned article.

(2) Denied that the impugned words in the article referred to the plaintiff or could refer to them.

(3) The impugned words did not concern the plaintiff, nor d