JUDGMENT

RK Nathan J:

Facts

The 1st plaintiff was and is engaged in providing professional secretarial services and advice to clients and has been so engaged for twenty years and had acquired a good reputation and is believed to have a good clientele from the Chinese business community. The 2nd plaintiff an accountant and a chartered secretary was at all material times the managing director and the alter ego of the 1st plaintiff. The defendant is the foremost leading English daily in Malaysia with a very wide circulation.

On 17 July 2001 the defendant published in a daily the following news:

Director charged with four counts of forgery

A company director claimed trial at the Sessions Court today to four counts of forgery by using false resolutions three years' ago. Tan Phaik Tin, 41, from J. Heng Consulting Services (M) Sdn Bhd, was charged with fraudulently using a false Directors' Circular Resolution Driall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd dated Nov 5, 1998, as an original' document while knowing it to be forged between Nov 5, 1998 and Nov 13, 1998. For the second and third charge, she was alleged to have committed a similar offence between June 1, 1998 and June 2, 1998 and between June 3, 1998 and July 31, 1998. For the fourth charge, Tan was alleged to have fraudulently used a false Members Circular Resolution as an original document, while knowing it to be forged, between June 3, 1998 and July 31, 1998. Tan was alleged to have committed all four offences at the company's premises at Jalan Cantonment here. She was charged under Section 471/468 of the Penal Code, punishable with maximum imprisonment of seven years and a fine.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that at no time did they ever engage the services of, nor did they employ, the said Tan Phaik Tin (Tan). By an order to amend dated 4 February 2002 the plaintiffs also averred that the said Tan was never the director at any time nor did she hold any position, in the 1st plaintiff.

By publishing the said news, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant through its reporter and editorial staff, had meant that:

(a) The plaintiffs or their staff had been engaged in criminal activities;

(b) The plaintiffs could not be believed and that they have indulged in forgery, fraud or cheating;

(c) The plaintiffs were not professionals and were not providing proper services to the general public;

(d) One of the plaintiffs' employees has been charged by the Public Prosecutor and that it is believed that the plaintiffs would be responsible;

(e) The plaintiffs were dishonest, untrustworthy were clever at manipulating, were unscrupulous, imprudent, shrewd and cunning and had conspired to cheat and had abetted in illegal activities;

(f) The plaintiffs could not be relied on to do an honest job as they were involved in a scandal;

(g) The plaintiffs were not suited to be involved in such a service industry;

(h) The plaintiffs ought to be shunned by the general public as being criminals, cheats and thus lacking in credibility;

(i) The plaintiffs have no integrity or morals to be able to perform secretarial services and to render advice.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that as soon as the said publication had appeared in the defendant's newspapers the plaintiffs received numerous calls from their clients enquiring as to the implications arising out of the publication. The plaintiffs contended that they suffered humiliation and felt defamed.

The plaintiffs forthwith demanded an apology through their solicitor's letter dated 20 July 2001 and sought damages but the defendant failed to respond. Contending that the defendant had falsely and maliciously published the article, the plaintiffs thus sued for libel and prayed for:

(i) General damages amounting to RM2 million or such sum as the court finds just and reasonable;

(ii) damages;

(iii) an injunction to restrain the defendant and its servants or agent, from circulating the said or such similar article or in any other way from defaming the plaintiffs;

(iv) ex