A corporate entity can sue for defamation when published statements tarnish its reputation, notwithstanding challenges to its locus standi or claims suggesting reliance solely on malicious falsehood.

Ahmadi Asnawi JCA:

[1] In this judgment, the parties will be referred to as they were in the court below.

[2] The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 , and is the registered owner and licence holder of Lincoln University College ("LUC").

[3] The 1st defendant is the owner of an online news portal www.antdaily.com., established by the 2nd defendant.

[4] The 3rd defendant is the writer working for the 1st and 2nd defendants.

[5] The 3rd defendant wrote an article entitled "Paid Holiday Part Of MMC Evaluation Visit" and the article was published in antdaily website on 29 August 2013.

[6] The full purport of the said article is reproduced below:

"Paid Holiday Part Of MMC Evaluation Visit.

Shah Alam: Making official trips abroad for the purpose of approving offshore medical programs seems to also translate to 'paid' holidays for some as further allegations of corruption were brought to the attention of the antdaily.

The Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) visited three Ukrainian Universities in 2011 to approve offshore medical programs for local private institution Lincoln University (LUC). The official trip which involved three people was from February 26 to March 2, 2011.

However, it is learnt that the member of the delegation was in Austria from February 13 to 16 and in Dublin from February 16 to 25, prior to arriving for his official duty in Ukraine.

A source claimed that the whole trip, including that to Austria and Dublin, was financed by LUC.

When contacted Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission investigation division director, Datuk Mustafar Ali said they are investigating the matter. Industry observers have questioned why the trip to Austria and Dublin was funded by an outside party if it is not official.

A possible explanation is that the other destination were transits points, but one that involved a transit period of 13 days, instead of direct flights which involved a maximum 24 hour transit?

Another questionable point is the fact that only one member of the delegation was actually an MCC member. The other two members were MMC secretary Dr Wan Mazlan Mohamad Woojdy and an MMC legal officer. It is understood that the MMC legal officer has since left the Council. The MMC website says the secretary is responsible for day-to-day administration and operations of the Council. So why were the secretary and a legal officer part of the delegation sent to evaluate a medical degree? The offshore medical degrees offered by the three universities the delegation visited in Ukraine have since been approved for LUC."

[7] Hence, the plaintiff's claim is for the publication of the said article which was deemed to be defamatory to the plaintiff, giving rise to the impression that the plaintiff was involved in corrupt practices and giving bribes in the form of sponsoring paid holidays to get recognition for LUC's medical program from MMC.

[8] As a result of the said defamatory article, the plaintiff had suffered a loss of reputation resulting in loss of potential students and lowering of LUC students' moral and staff.

[9] The sole issue before the learned trial judge then was whether the said article as read is defamatory and leads to the imputation as alleged by the plaintiff enumerated in the paragraphs above.

[10] The learned trial judge found that there was no dispute that the said article was written by the 3rd defendant and published online in the antdaily website, a publication launched and managed by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

[11] The learned trial judge also found that there was no dispute that the said article referred to the plaintiff.

[12] Having referred to several factors adduced before the court, the learned trial judge, in his grounds of judgment finally concluded that (at p 24, Rekod Rayuan (RR) Bahagian A - Jilid 1, para 16):

"... the article in this case is written with malice to tarnish and lower the image of LUC in the eyes of the public. Apart from that this article is an example of irrespo