A defamation claim is insufficient if specific defamatory statements are not identified, and a claim cannot arise from one's own wrongful conduct (ex turpi causa).

Mohd Hishamudin J:

[1]This is a defamation suit by the plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor, against the defendants for libel. The plaintiff claims damages in the sum of RM100 million including aggravated and/or exemplary damages.

[2006] 6 MLJ 521 at 526

[2]The words complained of by the plaintiff were published in a feature article entitled 'Malaysia justice on trial' in the 11 November 1995 issue of the International Commercial Litigation magazine.

[3]The words complained of by the plaintiff are set out in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. They are as follows:

6. On pages 10 to 14 of November 1995 issue of the International Commercial Litigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Magazine'), in a feature article entitled 'Malaysian justice in trial' (which article was the cover story for that issue, and was highlighted on the front cover of the Magazine), the first defendant wrote and published the second, third and the fourth defendants published, of and concerning the plaintiff, and of and concerning him in the way of his said profession and in relation to his conduct therein the following defamatory words:

[As the feature article is a long article, I have set it out separately in the Schedule to this judgment.]

7. The said words and illustration complained of in Paragraph 6 hereof in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean:

(1)that the plaintiff was guilty of corruption, or the attempted corruption of the Malaysian judiciary on an habitual basis for the purpose of obtaining special favours for his clients in litigations;

(2)that by so doing, the plaintiff had undermined confidence in the whole system of justice in Malaysia;

(3)that the plaintiff had lied to Judge Vohrah on 19 August 1995.

[4]The first defendant at the material time was staff writer of the said International Commercial Litigation magazine published by the fourth defendant.

[5]The second defendant was the editor of the said magazine.

[6]The third defendant was the editorial publisher of the magazine.

[7]The fourth defendant was at the material time proprietor and publisher of the magazine.

[8]The defendants have not entered appearance. In fact, they have not submitted to the jurisdiction of this court.

[9]In his written submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted among others the case of Insas Bhd & Anor v David Samuels & Ors [2005 1 MLJ115

[10]I have dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

[11]My grounds are as follows.

[2006] 6 MLJ 521 at 527

[12]First, I find that the plaintiff's pleading is defective. As the article is a long article, the plaintiff, besides pleading the whole article, should have also, in addition, pleaded the particular words or phrases or sentences or paragraphs in the article which, when read in the context of the whole article, are defamatory to the plaintiff in the manner as pleaded. Instead, in the present case, the plaintiff merely pleaded the whole article. In Scott v Fourth Estate [1986] 1 NZLR 336 Williamson J said(at pp 339–340):

… it must be a rare case where a plaintiff can plead a whole article without particularizing the passages in the articles that he complains of. It may be appropriate to plead the whole article in order to claim that certain passages or libelous statements take their meaning from the article, as a whole, but in order to focus the dispute it is important that the all