JUDGMENT

Faizah Jamaludin JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellants against the decision of the learned High Court Judge on 30 August 2023 where he allowed the Respondent's application in encl 9 to strike out the pleadings in the Appellants' statement of claim ("SOC") under O 18 r 19(1)(a) and O 78 r 3 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") on the basis that the pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

Salient Facts

[2] At the material time, the 1st Appellant was the Construction Manager and the 2nd Appellant was the Managing Director of Poratha Corporation Sdn Bhd ("PCSB"). The Respondent was a Director of ATB Sdn Bhd ("ATB"). He was also the Trading and Marketing Manager of Vitol Trading Malaysia Ltd

[3] ATB and HQC Engineering Sdn Bhd ("HQC") entered into an agreement for the construction of the "ATB PU Project" at Tanjung Bin, Johor ("the Project"). ATB was the employer and HQC was the main contractor of the Project. PCSB was HQC's subcontractor for the Project.

[4] ATB and PCSB entered into a Letter of Undertaking dated 13 July 2021 ("LOU"), pursuant to which ATB undertook to underwrite HQC's payments to PCSB.

[5] On 24 November 2021, a meeting was held between PCSB and ATB. The meeting was attended by the 1st Appellant and Mr Brij Dogra for PCSB, and the Respondent and ATB's staff for ATB. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the procedures required by HQC for the processing and payment of PCSB's claims

[6] On 25 November 2021, at around 9.00am, the Respondent came to PCSB's site cabin and requested a brief meeting with the 1st Appellant to discuss an alleged discrepancy relating to an outstanding payment for the Project. The meeting on 25 November 2021 ("the Unscheduled Meeting") was held at HQC's meeting room, which was located approximately 100 meters from PCSB's site cabin.

[7] The 1st Appellant contends that during the Unscheduled Meeting, he told the Respondent that he did not have the mandate to discuss payments on behalf of PCSB and that the Respondent should discuss the matter directly with the 2nd Appellant, who is PCSB's Managing Director.

[8] The 1st Appellant alleges that the Respondent, upon being informed that he should discuss the matters relating to payment directly with the 2nd Appellant, verbally assaulted and defamed the 1st Appellant and disparaged the 2nd Appellant by using the following words: "bastard, big shot, periya pudinggi, fuck, fucker, your boss is a bastard" ("the Impugned Words").

[9] Additionally, the 1st Appellant claims that the Respondent acted aggressively and violently by slamming his fist hard with force on the table and pushing the chairs in the meeting room, while continuously uttering the Impugned Words. He also claims that the Respondent threatened PCSB's ability to conduct business in the United Arab Emirates with ATB.

[10] The 1st Appellant contends that, following the Respondent's verbal assault, the 1st Appellant left the meeting room. However, the Respondent followed the 1st Appellant and continued to utter the Impugned Words towards the 1st Appellant in the presence of PCSB's workers, who were at a smoking shed located approximately 10 meters away from HQC's meeting room.

[11] It is the 1st Appellant's case that the PCSB workers at the smoking shed witnessed the incident and heard the Impugned Words uttered by the Respondent against him.

[12] On 24 February 2022, the Appellants filed an action for defamation against the Respondent at the Johor Bahru High Court . In their SOC, the Appellants contend that the Impugned Words were uttered, spoken, and published by the Respondent and that the words were defamatory in nature.

[13] On 18 May 2022, the Respondent filed the application in encl 9 to strike out the Appellants' SOC under O 18 r 19(1)(a) and O 78 r 3 of the ROC 2012 on the grounds, inter alia, that the Appellants failed to show any actionable claim based on the Impugned Words; there were no particulars of publication to third parties; and the third