Absolute privilege applies to complaints lodged with authorities, preventing defamation liability when reporting alleged conduct.

[1] There are four appeals heard before us. These appeals are against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 3 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No: W-02-1701-07-2012 which was heard together with Civil Appeal Nos: W-02-18-01-2013, W-02-1662-07-2012 and W-02-1700-07-2012.

[2] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants appeals (save for interest and costs) and affirmed the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2012 allowing the respondents claims against the appellant for defamation. The High Court awarded general damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages against the appellant.

[3] The respondents claims against the appellant were in respect of a police report and letters of complaint lodged by the appellant with the Commercial Crime Division, Kuala Lumpur (CCD), the Disciplinary Board (DB), the Bar Council Malaysia (BC), the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the Registrar of Societies (ROS).

Questions Of Law

[4] On 6 October 2015, this Court granted leave to appeal on five questions of law which were consolidated by the learned counsel for the appellant as follows:

(i) whether the lodging or writing of letter/s of complaint/s to the ROS/ACA/CCD were occasions of absolute privilege, consonant and/or consistent with the principle set out by the Federal Court in Lee Yoke Yam v. Chin Keat Seng, [2013] 1 MLJ 145 ("Lee Yoke Ham")?;

(ii) whether the issue of authority was a relevant or necessary consideration for absolute privilege to apply?;

(iii) whether the lodging or writing of letter/s of complaint/s to the ROS/ACA/CCD/BC were, prima facie, occasions of qualified privilege?;

(iv) whether malice as contemplated in the authority of Horrocks v. Lowe [1974] 1 All ER 662 ("Horrocks") may be inferred from the failure on the part of the defendant to take steps that he is not obliged to in law for the purpose of defeating the defence of qualified privilege, and

(v) whether a High Court is empowered to award aggravated and/or exemplary damages in respect of a series of defamatory remarks premised upon the same factor raised or contended by a plaintiff ?

Background Facts

[5] At the material time, the appellant was the President of Chinwoo Athletic Association Selangor and Kuala Lumpur (Chinwoo). The appellant became the President of Chinwoo in 2001. He succeeded the respondent who was the immediate past president of Chinwoo.

[6] The respondent is an advocate and solicitor and the founder of the legal firm Messrs TC Chong & Rakan-Rakan. The respondent was the President of Chinwoo from 30 June 1991 till 24 June 2001. Prior to that, the respondent was the Vice-President of Chinwoo from 1983 to 1988. He was a member of the Chinwoo Property Committee ( CPC ) from 1984 and became Chairman of the from 1989 till 1990. He was the Deputy President of Chinwoo from 1989 till 1991.

[7] Chinwoo was the registered owner of a parcel of land known as GRT 2643 Lot 27, Section 69, Bandar Kuala Lumpur (the Land). By a resolution made at Chinwoos extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 22 April 1984, the members resolved to enter into a joint venture with one Jiwa Realty Sdn Bhd (the Developer) to develop the Land (the Project).

[8] In 1985 and 1986, Chinwoo entered into two sale and purchase agreements with the Developer. Pursuant to the 1985 sale and purchase agreement (the 1985 SPA) Chinwoo agreed to sell the Land to the Developer and in return, according to the 1986 sale and purchase agreement (the 1986 SPA), the Developer agreed to sell 23% of the units developed in the Project to Chinwoo. This reflected the agreed sharing ratio of 23:77