The court upheld the principle that statements made under qualified privilege during internal investigations do not constitute defamation if made without malice.

Rozana Ali Yusoff J:

A. Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the whole decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) after a full trial in dismissing the Appellant/Plaintiff's claim against the Respondent/Defendant for defamation with cost.

[2] For ease of reference, the parties will be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendant respectively.

B. Background Of The Case

[3] The Plaintiff and the Defendant worked in a company registered as Intel Microelectronics (M) Sdn Bhd (Intel) during the period from 2005 to July 2011. The Defendant had applied to be transferred out from the supervision of the Plaintiff and report under another manager before he left the company in 2011. Since the Defendant was urged by the company's Human Resource Dept (HR) as to why he requested to be transferred out, the Defendant then disclosed three sexual harassment incidences to Norliza Mohd Nor and Siva Sitrembalan perpetrated on him by the Plaintiff. The company then conducted an investigation on the incidences and later issued a show cause letter to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff's service was terminated after a domestic inquiry was conducted by the company against the Plaintiff.

[4] The Plaintiff later brought a claim against the Defendant for defamation/malicious falsehood more that 5 (five) years after his termination from the company. The prayers seek by the Plaintiff were as follows:

[a] A permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from printing, spreading, publishing, distributing, further publishing libel or slander or any similar defamatory words in this case against the Plaintiff;

[b] Publication of an apology to the Plaintiff in accordance with the Plaintiff's wishes in a local newspaper within fourteen (14) days from the date the judgment is delivered to the Defendant or his solicitors;

[c] Special damages in the amount of RM249,593.16;

[d] General damages for libel and slander;

[e] General damages for malicious falsehood

[f] Aggravated damages;

[g] Exemplary damages;

[h] Interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the damages ordered calculated from the date of publication until the date of judgment;

[i] Interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the damages ordered calculated from the date of judgment until full settlement;

[j] Costs on solicitors and client basis; and

[k] Any other and/or further relief deemed fair and expedient by the Honorable Sessions Court.

[5] The Plaintiff's claim in the Session Court was dismissed on 18 January 2024 with costs of RM30,000.00.

C. Plaintiff Submission

[6] The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant had published defamatory statement during the domestic inquiry which was held on 7 November 20211. The Defendant's allegations, in ordinary meaning are understood to mean that the Plaintiff:

[a] have sexually harassed the Defendant';

[b] is a homosexual;

[c] have acted unprofessional in the course of the Plaintiff's employment;

[d] is a pervert; and

[e] should be shunned and avoided.

[7] The Plaintiff denied and that he had never sexually harassed the Defendant and the allegations were fabricated after the Plaintiff issued a few warnings in the form of performance message regarding to the Defendant's work performance. The Defendant had never raised any grievance with the Plaintiff nor the company with regard to the allegations of sexual harassment until the Plaintiff gave the Defendant an official performance message in 2011.

[8] The Plaintiff submitted that the learned SCJ has failed to apply the correct test on the burden of proof for defamation case. The impugned statement published