JUDGMENT

(Post Trial)

Kenneth St James J:

Prelude

[1] This is a libel suit. The Defendants are said to have published a Notice in a newspaper which is defamatory of the plaintiffs.

[2] The plaintiffs sued the defendants. The Defendants mounted a host of defences, and a counterclaim.

[3] Who should succeed?

Pertinent Facts

[4] The plaintiffs are all companies. The 1st to the 5th plaintiffs (P1 to P5) are the owners of the lands (and properties built on them). The lands and properties built on them make up the development called Auto-City Phase 3 (AC3).

[5] The properties in AC3 are tenanted to third parties for rent.

[6] AC3 is part of the bigger development called Auto-City.

[7] The 6th Plaintiff (P6) is not an owner of the lands and properties. P6 is the marketing and property management arm of Auto-City. P6 markets and promotes events, to attract customers to patronise the businesses of P1 to P5's tenants, to increase the tenants' revenue.

[8] The 7th plaintiff (P7) is the holding company for P3, P4 and P5.

[9] The 1st defendant (Henry) and his brother: Gary Teoh Kiang Hong (Gary), have been in protracted litigation against each other for over a decade (since 2008).

[10] The 2nd defendant (Ravin) is an advocate and solicitor, who acted for Henry in his litigation against Gary.

[11] The plaintiffs plead that Henry and Ravin published or caused to be published a notice in The Star newspaper on 28 September 2020 (Notice). The Notice contains the impugned words or statements which are the subject matter of this defamation suit (for libel). Ps plead that the impugned words and statements are defamatory of the plaintiffs.

[12] The Notice refers to two Court of Appeal (CA) Orders — the 29 January 2020 CA Order and the 24 August 2020 CA Order. The 29 January 2020 CA Order concerns three appeals. Of the three appeals, the pertinent appeal is Appeal No P-02(W)-1179-06/2017 [Theow Say Kow @ Teoh Kiang Seng, Henry v. Graceful Frontier Sdn Bhd & Ors And Other Appeals] (Appeal 1179).

[13] The CA's Grounds of Judgment for the 29 January 2020 CA Order (GOJ) was released on 29 January 2020, too.

[14] The three appeals to the CA arise from three Penang High Court suits. The pertinent High Court suit that resulted in the pertinent Appeal 1179 is Penang High Court Suit No 22-52-2010 (Suit 52). In Suit 52, Henry was the plaintiff and Gary and his companies were the defendants. In Suit 52, Henry claimed ownership of the whole of Auto-City.

[15] Suit 52 was Henry and Gary's dispute about the shares in three property development companies: Juru Auto-City Sdn Bhd (JAC), Highway Landmark Sdn Bhd (HL), and Western Frontier Sdn Bhd (WF), and the ownership of four lots of land that these companies used to own. Three of the four lots make up Auto-City Phase 1, and the fourth lot makes up Auto-City Phase 2.

[16] In Suit 52, Henry also laid claim to another three lots of land, which were developed into AC3. It is not disputed that the AC3 lands were never purchased from JAC, HL or WF, but were instead acquired from the Penang Development Corporation (PDC). It is important to note that in the CA GOJ, these three lots were identified as the "PDC lands" and "Auto-City 3", ie AC3.

[17] Henry was partially successful in his three appeals to the CA. The CA ordered the Auto-City Phase 1 and Auto-City Phase 2 lands to be returned to JAC, HL, and WF. But, the CA did not make any Orders on the AC3 lands. The 29 January 2020 CA Order reflects this fact (position).

[18] The relevance of the 24 August 2020 CA Order is merely that it stayed the 29 January 2020 CA Order.

The Notice

[19] The impugned words of the Notice are reproduced here verbatim and in their entirety [With My Emphases And Notes In Square Brackets Added]:

"IN THE Court OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO: P-02(W)-1179-06/2017

ANTARA

THEOW SAY KOW @ TEOH KIANG SENG, Henry

...PERAYU

DAN

1. GRACEFUL FRONTIER SDN BHD (583715-D)

2. EVEREST LANDMARK SDN BHD (445477-D)

3. TEOH KIANG HONG

4. ONG BEE LEE

5. LIM