KC Vohrah J:

A police report made by the 1st defendant (the 1st appellant) on behalf of the 2nd defendant company (the 2nd appellant) on 4 July 1990 at a Petaling Jaya Police Station, inter alia, referred to the plaintiff, Peter Chua Swee Lai, in the following terms:

Kami yakin yang Peter Chua Swee Lai NRIC 4531444 semasa beliau menjadi Pengarah Urusan di syarikat ini telah memecah amanah. (the company believes or is convinced that Peter Chua Swee Lai NRIC No. 4531444 committed breach of trust when he was the Managing Director in the Defendant Company)

The plaintiff sued for defamation on the police report in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.

The judge of the Sessions Court found the words complained of to be defamatory.

The judge found, and it was not disputed, that the 1st defendant was the agent of the 2nd defendant and that he had acted on the instruction of the 2nd defendant when he made the police report.

She found that the defamatory words positively referred to or identified the plaintiff and that is quite clear from the evidence.

She also found that there was publication of the defamatory words to third parties, to police constables and others. I do not think that