JUDGMENT

Azizan Md Arshad J:

Introduction

[1] The Respondent (Plaintiff) has filed a claim for damages against the Appellant (Defendant) alleging that the defendant had circulated defamatory statements against him via WhatsApp messages in a WhatsApp group known as Surin JMC Feedback Chat. The WhatsApp messages allegedly contained words defamatory against the respondent/plaintiff.

[2] The Court after hearing the Appeal on 29 September 2025, dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the decision on liability decided by the Learned Sessions Court Judge and set aside part of the quantum. The Appellant hereinafter filed an appeal against the finding on liability and quantum. In this Grounds of Judgment (GOJ), parties are referred to as they were in the Sessions Court .

Issues

[3] The issues to be decided by the Court are:

(a) Whether the Disputed Statements were posted or sent by the Defendant himself in the WhatsApp group?

(b) Whether the Disputed Statements referred to the Plaintiff?

(c) Whether the Disputed Statements were defamatory of the Plaintiff?

(d) Whether the Disputed Statements circulated by the defendant were motivated by bad faith?

(e) Whether the Defendant was entitled to rely on the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment?

Law Relating To Appeals

[4] This Court , in hearing appeals from the Sessions Court , is acting in an appellate capacity under s 27 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read with O 55 r 5 ROC 2012 ". In the case of Chan Lai Yoke & Anor v. Ess Engineering Sdn Bhd (Encl 64), it was stated as follows:

"Order 55 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 provides that all appeals to the High Court shall be by way of re-hearing. The White Book on the Malaysian Civil Procedure 2021 Volume 1, p 812 at para 55/2/1 states as follows:

In a re-hearing, a judge is not tasked to consider whether the lower Court judge had exercised his discretion correctly or had properly considered the relevant material. He would consider the case as if it came before him for the first time.

(See Malayan Banking Berhad v. James Francois Saw Song Kai & Anor)

[5] It is also a matter of principle and settled law that the High Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court in determining the outcome of a case based on the facts and the evidence of the witnesses.

[6] The Federal Court in the case of Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781 decided as follows:

"[14] In our view, the Court of Appeal in citing these cases had clearly borne in mind the central feature of appellate intervention, ie to determine whether or not the trial Court had arrived at its decision or finding correctly on the basis of the relevant law and/or the established evidence. In so doing, the Court of Appeal was perfectly entitled to examine the process of evaluation of the evidence by the trial Court . Clearly, the phrase 'insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence' merely related to such process. This is reflected in the Court of Appeal's restatement that a judge who was required to adjudicate upon a dispute must arrive at his decision on an issue of fact by assessing, weighing and, for good reasons, either accepting or rejecting the whole or any part of the evidence placed before him. The Court of Appeal further reiterated the principle central to appellate intervention, ie that a decision arrived at by a trial Court without judicial appreciation of the evidence might be set aside on appeal. This is consistent with the established plainly wrong test.".

[7] The Federal Court in the case of Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors; [2020] 12 MLJ 67; [2020] 10 CLJ 1; [2020] 8 AMR 227 decided that:

"the principle on which an appellate Court could interfere with findings of fact by the trial Court is 'the plainly wrong test' principle".

[8] In the case of Ong Leong Chiou & Anor v. Keller (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors And Another Appeal at 329, the Court