JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan JCA (majority):

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court Judge who allowed the respondent's claim in a defamation suit arising from seven impugned statements published by the three appellants over a compressed period of eight days. The learned High Court Judge found that each of the impugned statements bore defamatory meanings of and concerning the respondent, rejected the appellants' pleaded defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment, and proceeded to award general damages together with aggravated damages against each of the appellants in respect of each of their respective publications. The appellants were further ordered to publish an apology to the respondent.

[2] The appellants appealed against that decision. Significantly, while the finding that the impugned statements are defamatory was not seriously pursued before us, the appellants contended that the learned High Court Judge erred in rejecting the defences advanced and in the approach taken to the assessment of damages. In particular, it was submitted that the seven statements, having been made within a short span of time and concerning the same subject matter, ought properly to have been treated as constituting a single continuous course of defamation, rather than as discrete and independent publications attracting separate awards.

[3] Arising from that submission is the further question whether, assuming liability is established, it would be more appropriate to substitute the multiple awards made below with a single global sum of damages, and whether such damages ought to be imposed jointly and severally against all three appellants, rather than severally against each appellant for each statement.

[4] This appeal also raises an important issue of principle as to whether the court possesses the jurisdiction to compel the publication of an apology, a matter on which the learned High Court Judge below ruled in the affirmative.

[5] In addition, there is before us a cross-claim brought by the appellants against the respondent, seeking, inter alia, the return of performance bonus allegedly paid, and the delivery up of certain social media accounts, namely WeChat and Instagram accounts, said to have been used by the respondent in the course of her engagement with the appellants.

[6] Accordingly, the principal issues for determination in this appeal may be summarised as follows:

(i) whether the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment were rightly rejected by the High Court Judge;

(ii) whether the seven impugned statements ought to be treated as a continuous course of defamation;

(iii) whether the assessment of damages should be global rather than segmented, and if so, whether liability ought to be joint and several;

(iv) whether the court has the power to order the publication of an apology; and

(v) whether there are merits to the appellants' cross-claim.

Background Facts

[7] The first appellant, Tan Sing How ("Chord") and the second appellant, Lai Phui Khae ("Kay") are the founders and directors of the third appellant, Kalysta Sdn Bhd ("Kalysta").

[8] Kalysta is a company that markets and sells health supplements with a focus on weight loss. Their products are known as "XLIMIX" and "ORI.LEMON". They have about 1,500 agents across Malaysia. Significantly, Kalysta's business operates exclusively online, with its customers primarily drawn from the public who use Instagram.

[9] The respondent, Ng Ze Xuan ("Stella"), was the former general agent of Kalysta, a position just below the founders of Kalysta, who led the "KALYSTA SOULUV" group with more than 400 sales representatives.

[10] As a general agent, Stella was required to comply with all the terms set out in the independent contractor agreement as well as the policies and guidelines issued by Kalysta from time to time. Her income was mainly from commissions on sales generated by her downline and from performance-based bonuses.

[11] Kalysta spe