JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

[Enclosure 8]

Preliminary

[1] By way of encl 8, the defendant is seeking leave from this Court to file a Reply to Defence to Counterclaim. The purpose of this is to reply to the plaintiffs' Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim.

[2] The application is made in accordance with O 18 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"), which provides that:

Pleadings subsequent to reply (O 18 r 4)

4. Pleadings subsequent to a reply or a defence to a counterclaim shall not be served except with the leave of the Court .

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[3] The suit involves a claim of defamation.

[4] The parties involved here are all what are commonly referred to as influencers in today's world.

[5] The plaintiffs claim that the defendant had defamed them by mentioning their names in subsequent postings, which followed two main articles written by the defendant in a news portal on a matter in which local radio station deejays were fined by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ("MCMC") for mentioning religiously sensitive topics in one of their radio segments.

[6] The defamation postings allegedly suggested that the plaintiffs were not sensitive to issues relating to their own religion.

[7] Meanwhile, the defendant counterclaimed on defamation issues, claiming that the plaintiffs implied that all charity work by the defendant was insincere and a form of taking advantage of national and disaster issues.

Court 's Analysis And Findings

[8] Before going into the merits of the application, the parties have agreed for me to decide on a preliminary issue raised by the defendant by way of a preliminary objection.

[9] On this, the plaintiffs argue that the affidavit in support of Enclosure 8 and its affidavit in reply were both affirmed by the learned solicitor for the defendant. There was no affidavit filed by the defendant.

[10] Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs argue that given the issues raised by the defendant in the draft Reply to Defence to Counterclaim consist of facts which could only be known by the defendant personally, it is unreasonable and inappropriate for the learned solicitor to file both affidavits on matters arising from those facts.

[11] Meanwhile, the defendant argues that the contents of both affidavits only contain issues of law as opposed to issues of fact.

[12] In this regard, the defendant claims that the issue of law involved O 78 r 3 of the Rules of 2012, which provides that:

Obligations to give particulars (O 78 r 3)

3. (1) Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges that the words or matters complained of were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning, he must give particulars of the facts and matters on which he relies in respect of such sense.

(2) Where in an action for libel or slander the defendant alleges that, in so far as the words complained of consist of statements of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, and in so far as they consist of expressions of opinion, they are fair comment on a matter of public interest, or pleads to the like effect, he must give particulars stating which of the words complained of he alleges are statements of fact and of the facts and matters he relies on in support of the allegation that the words are true.

(3) Where in an action for libel or slander the plaintiff alleges that the defendant maliciously published the words or matters complained of, he need not in his statement of claim give particulars of the facts on which he relies in support of the allegation of malice, but if the defendant pleads that any of those words or matters are fair comment on a matter of public interest or were published upon a privileged occasion and the plaintiff intends to allege that the defendant was actuated by express malice, he must serve a reply giving particulars of the facts and matters from which the malice is to be inferred.

(4) This rule shall apply in relation to a counterclaim for libel or slander as if