A society registered under the Societies Act 1966 is a legal entity capable of being sued through its office bearer, distinguishable from political parties which lack the requisite reputation to sustain defamation claims.

Introduction

[1] Defendant filed this application for a question of law to be determined on preliminary issue by this Court under O 33 r 5 and/or under O 14A of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) via encl 41. The initial question posed is:

"Can the Plaintiff commence and sustain an action on a cause of action in defamation against the Defendant, which is a society pursuant to the provisions of the Societies Act 1966 ."

[2] In the midst of hearing both parties, I have proposed revised questions as follows:

1. Whether the Defendant can be sued for defamation in the light of Lim Lip Eng 's case?

2. Whether the Federal Court in Lim Lip Eng , referring to the statement in para 64 that "as a matter of policy, the focus or our judgment must be confined to the question of law posed" means that the judgment is limited only to whether a political party or society can sue for defamation?

3. Whether a society is a legal entity?

[3] On 13 September 2024, having heard both parties and submissions filed, I answered the questions in the affirmative and gave my brief grounds pronounced as follows:

Decision:

I have considered in detail the issue raised by the Defendant and, after careful consideration of the submissions on the impact and applicability of the Lim Lip Eng case, I have come to the following conclusion:

1. The principle enunciated in the case of Lee Tak Suan (FC) was that a society, upon its registration under a statute (the Societies Act), gains legal recognition of its existence; thus, Kelab PJ is a legal entity. It is undisputed that S.9(c) provides that a society can be sued in the name of its office bearer.

2. Lim Lip Eng 's case specifically answered the question of whether a political party can maintain a suit for defamation. FC discussed at length what amounts to defamation, the locus standi of the Respondent (Ong Ka Chuan) to sue for damages for defamation, the importance of having a requisite reputation, and, along the way, cited and referred to authorities on companies or societies whether having separate legal entities to sue or be sued in its own name. This was when Gatley on Liber and Slander was referred to, and later, discussions were made into the English cases that were relevant to the question posed. The final findings of the FC were based on the lack of locus standi and the Respondent's failure to demonstrate that it has a reputation which the law ought to protect. To be specific, the FC states at the conclusion of its judgment that the Respondent in the instant case (public officer of MCA), "being a political party, cannot maintain a suit for defamation" thus answering the question posed in the negative.

3. The case of Lee Tak Suan was not referred to by the FC in Lim Lip Eng . Therefore, the principle mentioned earlier is still good law.

4. In the present case, the Defendant is not bringing an action for defamation but only defending themselves from the suit brought by Plaintiff. The specific reasons stated in Lim Lip Eng do not apply to the present case, and I am more inclined to follow Lee Tak Suan 's reasoning, which is more similar to this case.

Based on the brief reasons above, my answer to the original question would be in the affirmative and also to all the re-formulated questions, all in the affirmative.

Therefore, Defendant's application in encl 41 is answered accordingly, and I will order the cost of this application to be paid to Plaintiff. Cost of RM8000 to the Plf subject to allocator.

The matter will proceed to trial.

[4] The Defendant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal, and I have set out my reasons below.

The Undisputed Facts

[5] Plai