In defamation cases, the burden of proof lies on plaintiffs to establish that defamatory statements were made, while defenses of qualified privilege and fair comment cannot prevail if the statements are untrue and maliciously published.

Anand Ponnudurai J:

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]The Plaintiffs commenced this present defamation action against the Defendant based on five publications published during her tenure as the Communication Chief of Wanita Keadilan of the People’s Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) (“PKR”). In addition, the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs have also mounted a claim against the Defendant for the tort of malicious falsehood.

[2]A full trial was conducted. I will first set out the background facts, followed by the parties’ respective contentions/submissions and thereafter my analysis of the evidence in relation to the agreed issues to be tried in this matter to determine whether the Plaintiffs’ claim should succeed.

THE PARTIES

[3]The 1^st Plaintiff is a company providing management services and investment holding while the 2^nd Plaintiff is a company in the construction business. Both companies are related.

[4]The 3^rd Plaintiff is the majority shareholder and a director of the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs.

[5]The Defendant was previously the Communications Chief of Wanita Keadilan and is currently still a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), a political party registered in Penang, Malaysia under the Societies Act 1966 .

AGREED FACTS/PREMISE OF CLAIM

[6]In the statement of agreed facts filed in these proceedings, parties have agreed to the following facts:

6.1The libel action herein against the Defendant is premised on five publications (hereinafter collectively known as the “said publications”):

i.Press statement by Carolyn Khor dated 7^th June 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “first publication”);

ii.An article entitled ‘PKR Wanita urges new MACC chief to look into Mindef land swap deal’ dated 7^th June 2019 and published on Free Malaysia Today at the URL: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/cateqory/nation/2019/06/07/pkr-wanita-urges-new-macc-chief-to-look-into-mindef-land-swap-deal/ (hereinafter referred to as the “second publication”);

iii.An article entitled ‘SPRM diminta siasat pertukaran tanah Kementerian Pertahanan sejak 24 tahun’ dated 8^th June 2019 and published on Malaysia Gazette at the URL: https://malaysiagazette.com/2019/06/08/sprm-diminta-siasat-pertukaran-tanah-kementerian-pertahanan-sejak-24-tahun/ (hereinafter referred to as the “third publication”);

iv.Press statement published by Carolyn Khor on her Facebook page dated 27^th June 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “fourth publication”); and

v.An article entitled ‘Land swap: Wanita PKR enggan tank kenyataan dan memohon maaf kepada pemaju’ dated 28^th June 2019 and published on Malaysia Dateline at the URL: https://www.malaysiadateline.com/land-swap-wanita-pkr-enqqan-tarik-kenvataan-dan-mohon-maaf-kepada-pemaiu/ (hereinafter referred to as the “fifth publication”).

6.2The Plaintiffs have through their solicitors issued a letter before action dated 24^th June 2019 to the Defendant to perform the following:

i.to issue a full and unequivocal, written retraction and apology; and

ii.to provide an undertaking from the Defendant not to cause, permit or allow the re-publication or repetition of the same or similar allegations contained in the first publication now or in the future.

PARTIES’ PLEADED CASES/ THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM

[7]The Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant is for libel arising from the impugned statements in the said five publications and malicious falsehood or what is commonly known as ‘slander of title’ of the 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs.

[8]The Plaintiffs plead that the Defendant is responsible for all the publications of the impugned statements and the republication of the same. The said publications have been set out verbatim in the Statement of Claim and are as follows:

[9]The Plaintiffs plead that the impugned statements underlined in the said five publications in their natural and ordinary meaning, or alternatively, by way of innuendo were defamatory of the Plaintiffs (each of them and/or any one or more of them).

[10]The Plaintiffs further plead that the words used in t