A political party lacks the requisite reputation and cause of action to maintain a suit for defamation, emphasizing public interest in free speech and political discourse.

Zaleha Yusof FCJ:

Introduction

[1] My learned sister Rohana Yusuf PCA, my learned brother Azahar Mohamed CJM, my learned sisters Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJ and Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ have read this judgment and they have expressed their agreement on the conclusion and the reasons set out in this judgment. My learned brother Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal FCJ and my learned sister Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ agreed with the conclusion of this judgment but for different reasons.

[2] The appellant had filed an application under O 18 r 19(1)(a) or (b), (c) and/ or (d) of the Rules of 2012, to strike out the respondent's claim in a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 17 July 2017 (the said action) at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur for alleged tort of defamation, on the ground that the respondent, being a political party, had no locus standi to file a defamation suit.

[3] The application was dismissed by the High Court with costs on 27 February 2018 and on appeal, the decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 11 July 2019.

[4] On 12 March 2020, this Court had granted the appellant leave to appeal on the following sole question of law:

"Whether a political party can maintain a suit for defamation having regard to the decisions in Goldsmith & Another v. Bhoyrul & Others [1998] QB 459 and Rajagopal v. Jayalalitha [2006] 2 MLJ 689 ."

Brief Facts

[5] The appellant was a member of Parliament for Segambut Constituency. Currently, he is a member of Parliament for the Constituency of Kepong.

[6] The respondent is a public officer of a society registered as Malaysia Chinese Association (MCA) under the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335). MCA is a political society and a component party to the then ruling Federal Government of Malaysia.

[7]Subsection 9(c) of Act 335inter alia provides:

"a society may sue or be sued in the name of such one of its members as shall be declared to the Registrar and registered by him as the public officer of the society for that purpose ..."

[8] Hence, being the public officer of MCA, the respondent had filed an action against the appellant for an alleged defamatory statement issued by the appellant at a press conference held at the corridor of Parliament on or about 15 March 2017.

[9] The alleged defamatory words were:

"(i) Jadi saya minta parti MCA mengumumkan secara awam aset yang dimiliki oleh Parti MCA: FD, wang tunai, fixed asset, syer dan sebagainya. Secara umum, berapa aset yang dimiliki oleh MCA. Dan saya mengaitkan aset parti itu dengan peruntukan kerajaan kepada sekolah Cina. Saya nak juga MCA mengumumkan daripada jumlah aset yang dimiliki oleh MCA, berapa dari jumlah itu pernah diberikan kepada sekolah Cina... tiap-tiap tahun...

(ii) ... Informasi yang saya dapat, tidak pernah sekali pun MCA ambil dari poket parti sendiri untuk memberi kepada sekolah Cina I mean, dalam bentuk peruntukan. Semua yag dia dapat daripada donation awam, daripada kerajaan, dia masuk poket MCA sendiri. Masuk sahaja, tak pernah keluar."

[10] The appellant filed his defence at the High Court and thereafter, as alluded to before, filed the application in encl 6 to strike out the respondent's claim.

[11] The learned High Court Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Chong Chieng Jen v. Government Of State Of Sarawak & Anor, 2020 MarsdenLR 2128 which rejected the principle in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspaper Ltd & Ors [1993] 1 All ER 1011. In Derbyshire (supra), it was inter alia held that a local authority and a local government body could not sue for defamation. As such, the learned High Court Judge dismissed the appellant's application as His Lordship was of the view that the appellant had failed to show that the respondent's claim was obviously unsustainable.

[12] The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal. The grounds of judgment of the Court of Appeal are not available. However, according to its ex