JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] This action arises from a claim in defamation brought by three officers of the LGMS Group and a company within the LGMS Group against a former employee, following the publication of an article on the latter's Medium account entitled "My Experience Working at a Toxic Cyber Security Company (the Impugned Article). The plaintiffs allege that the Impugned Article, in its natural and ordinary meaning and by way of innuendo, defamed them and caused serious injury to their reputations. The defendant disputes that the article referred to the plaintiffs and, in the alternative, relies on the defences of justification and Fair Comment.

[2] The matter proceeded to a full trial over two days, with both sides calling witnesses and tendering documentary evidence. Having considered the testimony, the documentary record, and the submissions of learned counsel, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have proven their case and find that the defendant's Impugned Article has indeed defamed all four plaintiffs. The defence pleaded by the defendant and adduced at trial were analysed and duly considered.

Introduction

[3] The 1st plaintiff is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the LGMS Group. The 2nd plaintiff is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the LGMS Group. The 3rd plaintiff is the Senior Manager of the LGMS Group. The 4th plaintiff is LE Global Services Sdn Bhd, a cybersecurity company and within the LGMS Group. The defendant was a former employee of the 4th plaintiff, having been employed from 17 January 2022 to 29 April 2022 in the position of Cybersecurity Engineer.

[4] The plaintiffs allege that the Impugned Article contains statements which, in their natural and ordinary meaning and/or by way of innuendo, are defamatory of them. The statements are alleged to mean and/or be understood as conveying (as para [16] Amended Statement of Claim), inter alia:

(a) The 1st and/or 2nd plaintiffs like to brag;

(b) The 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd plaintiffs are unprofessional, rude and/or prioritise profit;

(c) The 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd plaintiffs are not qualified to hold positions at LGMS Group;

(d) The 2nd and/or 4th plaintiffs set ridiculous rules at workplace;

(e) The 4th plaintiff forced the defendant to sign his job offer letter;

(f) The 4th plaintiff did not treat new employees and interns fairly;

(g) The 4th plaintiff considers itself perfect and not in need of any improvement;

(h) The 4th plaintiff did not reimburse the defendant for travel expenses and overtime work;

(i) The 4th plaintiff is able to profit by exploiting its employees;

(j) The 4th plaintiff is an unprofessional company that prioritises profit.

(k) The service and quality of the 4th plaintiff incompetent, unprofessional and unreliable

(l) The 4th plaintiff has instructed employees to publish false comments favourable to the 4th Plaintiff and instructed third parties to remove or suppress negative comments about them;

(m) The 4th plaintiff is a company with a workplace that is terrible and unfit for any person;

(n) The 4th plaintiff does not respect the privacy rights of its employees and/or has violated the privacy rights of its employees;

(o) The 4th plaintiff is an authoritarian and oppressive company.

(p) The plaintiffs do not allow their employees to take breaks or interact at work;

(q) The plaintiffs will be angry with the defendant if the defendant asks any questions regarding the 4th plaintiff's penetration testing process;

(r) The plaintiffs frequently criticize their competitors;

(s) The plaintiffs brainwash and manipulate recent graduates to become their puppets;

(t) The plaintiffs practice a toxic culture; and/or

(u) The plaintiffs or any of them attempted to hack the defendant's email and thereby attempted to commit an offense under the Computer Crimes Act 1997

[5] The plaintiffs received queries from friends, business associates and/or colleagues concerning the Impugned Article, and they claim to have suffered losses as a result of the publication.

[6] The defendant