Plaintiff’s failure to prove jurisdiction and essential elements of defamation led to suit dismissal; defendants successfully established justification and qualified privilege defenses.

Introduction

[1] On 8 July 2025, this Court dismissed the defamation suit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants with costs.

[2] This decision was delivered after a full hearing. The trial for this case was conducted over two days, specifically on January 14 and 15, 2025. Both parties wrapped up their cases on February 15, 2025. In this Grounds of Judgment parties are referred to as they were in the High Court.

Cause Papers

[3] The documents relied on by parties during trial are as below:

(i) Ikatan Pliding - A

(ii) Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Jilid 1) - B

(iii) Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Jilid 2) - Bl

Proceedings

[4] There were a total of 3 witnesses for the Plaintiff and Defendants

Plaintiff's witnesses

(i) Lim Leong Hock - PSP1

Plaintiffs Additional Questions were tendered during trial- PSP-IA

(ii) Lim Ping Ru - PSP-2

Defendants' Witness

(i) Phoon Sook Fong Defendant-PSD-1

Proceedings

[5] The trial related to the present issue took place over a span of two days, specifically on January 14, 2025, and January 15, 2025. During these two days, various arguments and evidence were presented to address the matter at hand.

[6] Throughout the trial proceedings, the Plaintiff called upon three (3) supporting witnesses to present their evidence to this Court. This evidence included not only oral testimonies delivered in person but also written witness statements that were submitted for consideration.

[7] In contrast, the Defendants, who included four individuals in this lawsuit, called only one witness: Phoon Sook Fong (SD1), the Third Defendant and a director of the First Defendant company, whose statement was marked as PSD1.

The Law

[8] Defamation is acknowledged as a tort in Malaysian law, indicating it is a civil wrongdoing that may result in legal proceedings. For a Plaintiff to prevail in a defamation case, they need to establish and prove three essential elements.

(i) that the impugned statement is defamatory in nature;

(ii) that the impugned statement refers to the Plaintiff; and

(iii) that the statement was published to a third party.

Facts Of The Case

[9] The Plaintiff, Lim Leong Hock, has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Defendants due to the distribution of certain emails that he alleged contained defamatory remarks aimed at him.

[10] When these emails are analysed in context and according to their natural and ordinary meaning, they were intended to demean and damage the Plaintiff's reputation, goodwill, and standing.

[11] Additionally, the Plaintiff contends that these emails were circulated with malicious intent, leading to exposure to hatred, ridicule, and contempt, as well as causing emotional distress and harm to his reputation. Prior to filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought an apology, damages, and assurances that the defamatory statements would not be repeated. These requests were not met, prompting the current legal action.

[12] In their defence, the Defendants primarily relied on the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege. They assert that the statements made in the emails were true in substance and fact, or alternatively, that they constituted fair comments based on true facts. The Defendants' position is this:

(i) Relying on the Defence of Justification & Fair Comment - The contents of the 5 emails are true in substance and in fact hence it is not defamatory in nature;

(ii) Relying on the Defence of Qualified Privilege - The 5 emails were sent to the 5 recipients to protect the 1st Defendant company's interest;

(iii) There is no express malice on the Defendants in publishing t