JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] The parties in a nutshell:

(1) The Plaintiff (P) is a registered society under the Societies Act 1966 on 15 December 2014:

(a) Edwin Sither was a former member of the First Defendant (D1).

(b) He left D1 and register P as a registered society, but it is not a registered body under ss 15, 16 and 25 of the Sports Development Act 1997.

(2) The First Defendant (Taekwondo Selangor: D1), is a body registered on 8 June 2010, and the Second Defendant (Taekwondo Malaysia: D2), is a body registered on 26 August 2010.

(a) Unlike P, D1 and D2 are organisations registered under the Sports Development Act 1997 as required by law.

(b) D1 is a member of D2.

(3) The Third Defendant (D3) is the Federal Minister of Sports.

(4) The Fourth Defendant (D4) is the Federal Commissioner for Sports under the Ministry of Sports.

(5) The Fifth Defendant (D5) is the Government of Malaysia.

[2] This case revolves around:

(1) P, D1 and D2 tussle over competing interests in Taekwondo activities in the schools in Selangor and elsewhere:

(a) P made allegations of:

Defamation committed by D1, whereby D1 and D2 had allegedly conspired to defame and injure P, and

(b) Breach of public duty by D3, D4 and D5 in failing to act in retracting the impugned open letter of 20 March 2018, that allegedly contained adverse content on the position of P as a martial arts body promoting Taekwondo.

(2) By issuing and publishing the alleged defamatory letters to allegedly prevent P from engaging in activities involving Taekwondo (the impugned activities) in schools in Selangor and elsewhere.

(3) P is a registered society that claimed to have received written approval from the Ministry of Education (MOE) (KPM600-6/1/15 JLD 19(21): 12 September 2018) to hold the national Taekwondo competition for public schools under the governance of MOE to be held on 17 November 2018.

However, I observe that such approval can't supersede or predominate over the legislative requirements of the Sports Development Act of 1977.

(4) D4, without seeking any clarification from P, on 20 March 2018, issued a letter notifying that since P is not registered with the Pejabat Pesuruhjaya Sukan as required under the Sports Development Act 1997, P will not be allowed to conduct the impugned activities.

[3] On 24 April 2025:

(1) After considering the facts, all the cause papers, the evidence adduced at the trial, and the parties' respective arguments, on the balance of probabilities, I found no merit in P's suit against the Ds.

(2) I accordingly dismissed it with costs.

(3) RM40,000.00 was awarded to D1, RM25,000.00 to D2, and RM25,000.00 to D3, D4, and D5. All costs are to be paid within 90 days from the date of this order.

(4) Similarly, I found no merit in D1's counterclaim against P, and dismissed it with costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid within 90 days from the date of this order.

(5) Aggrieved, only P filed this appeal, and my reasons are as follows:

[4] The witnesses at the trial are:

(1) For the Plaintiff (P)

PW1: Mohd Rashid Bin Meon

PW2: Mohamed Salleh Hussien Bin Abd Ghani

PW3: Edwin a/l Sither

(2) For the First Defendant (D1)

DW1: Karunakaran a/l Chatu

(3) For the Second Defendant (D2)

DW2: Rajendran a/l Muthusamy

(4) For the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants

DW3: Dhanaraj a/l Rassiah

DW4: Hasnata Bin Hassan

DW5: Abu Zarin Bin Abu Hasan

DW6: Zaiton Binti Othman

Brief Facts

[5] To put this case in its accurate perspective:

(1) Taekwondo:

We have to first look at what Taekwondo is. It is a martial art originating from Korea that is recognised for its competitive nature and striking techniques. The question is, is Taekwondo a combat sport?

(2) The Definition of Combat Sports:

(a) Combat sports are typically competitive physical contests between individuals, where tactics involve various techniques, including striking and grappling. These sports often have specific rules designed to ensure the safety of participants while allowing them to showcase their skills and abilities. Examples include boxin