Hamid Sultan J:

[1]This is my judgment in respect of the decision to strike out the plaintiff's action pursuant to the jurisprudence advocated in the English Court of Appeal's decision in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc Sulaihah binti Maimunni v UEM Builders Berhad & Anor Foo Yong v Pang Ee Seng & Anor

[2]I must say that this case though filed in the year 2007, came before me for the first case management on 5 October 2012. During the course of case management, learned counsel for the defendants informed me that on the same subject matter and facts, the plaintiff had also filed an action against other parties inclusive of newspaper publisher and the trial judge has dismissed the claim. The said judgment is reported as Dato Annas bin Khatib Jaafar v Datuk Manja Ismail & Ors

(1)The impugned article reported allegations of wrong doing and was not a conclusive finding of fault against the Management of Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia ('LKIM') save and except at the end where the comments of the plaintiff was sought in his capacity as director general of LKIM. The court was unable to find anything defamatory in relation to the plaintiff in respect of the matters raised in the impugned article (see para 3).

(2)Those who knew the plaintiff especially members of the administrative and diplomatic service, would know the report referred merely to a complaint to the anti-corruption agency. Further they would be aware when the plaintiff took over as director general of LKIM and that the matters referred to in the impugned article were before his appointment. The impugned article further made no reference to the plaintiff at all, to say that it was defamatory of the plaintiff. The alleged complaint was against the management of LKIM of which the plaintiff was the director general (see para 5).

(3)Looking at the impugned article as a whole and giving the same its natural and ordinary meaning, it remained an alleged complaint against the management of LKIM and not the plaintiff singularly (see para 6).

(4)The defence of qualified privilege through the concept of 'responsible journalism' gives a certain degree of latitude surrounding newspaper publications not available previously. It is a question of the rights of the plaintiff to the protection of his own reputation as opposed to the freedom of expression and the role of the media in modern society. So long as the defendant advanced matters of public interest within the confines of responsible journalism, they were always be in a position to enjoin the court to declare the reassertion of the guarantee to the freedom of speech enshrined under art 10 of the Federal Constitution. This approach would be consonant with the aspirations of modern society for transparency and accountability whilst protecting against blatant maligning of the reputation of individuals.

[3]The defendants' counsel were unanimous in asserting that the issues had been ventilated and the plaintiff's attempt to proceed with this suit will amount to abuse of process of court and it is a fit and proper case to strike out the plaintiff's claim on reliance of the jurisprudence advocated in Jameel's case.

[4]I invited all parties to file affidavits by way of case management directions pursuant to the power vested in court generally under the Rules of Court 2012, and specifically under O 34 and O 92 r 4 to show cause why the plaintiff's claim ought not be struck out in limine on the grounds of abuse of process of court.

[5]All the parties have filed their respective affidavits. The defendants have filed a comprehensive submission in encls 49–50 respectively and learned counsel for the plaintiff says he will rely on the plaintiff's affidavits filed. Learned counsel for the first to third defendants has set out the facts and law in encl 49. Much judicial time will be saved if it is repeated. Paragraphs 13–38, inter alia, as edited by court read as follows:

(a)whether the plaintiff's suit herein ought to be struck out as being an abuse of the cou