The appellate court emphasized the burden of proof in defamation cases and the necessity for judicial appreciation of evidence in ruling on claims.

[1] The Appellants ("the Defendants in the High Court") had appealed against the decision of the High Court in Penang which allowed the Respondent's ("the Plaintiff in the High Court") claim with costs. Vide the decision dated 29th September 2015, the Appellants were ordered to pay the Respondent damages for defamation in the sum of RM200,000.00. The 1st Appellant was further ordered to pay the sum of RM76,000.00 being the outstanding salary and directorship's fee totaling RM2,000.00 per month from August 2012 to date of judgment. Costs and interests were also ordered against the Defendants.

[2] Having perused the records of appeal, the written submissions filed herein and having heard the arguments of both learned Counsel for the Respondent and the Appellants we allowed the appeal with costs of RM30,000.00 here and below.

[3] Our reasons for doing so now follow.

[4] For ease of reference the parties will be referred to as they were described in the High Court.

Brief Background Facts

[5] The 1st Defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 which deals with wholesale and retail sales of automotive parts, batteries and accessories.

[6] The 1st Defendant was established by both the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant on 16th June 2010.

[7] The Plaintiff is a director and the Sales Manager of the 1st Defendant, who holds 40% shares of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant is also a director of the 1st Defendant who holds 60% of the shares. The Plaintiff's monthly basic salary is RM1,500.00 plus RM500.00 as directorship fee.

[8] On 29th March 2011, one Ong Bee Wah was appointed as another director of the 1st Defendant and in 2013, the 2nd Defendant sold one of his shares to Ong Bee Wah at RM1.00.

[9] On 15th January 2013, the 1st Defendant had caused a notice to be published in the Sin Chew Newspaper ("the impugned Notice") in Mandarin, which was translated to Bahasa Malaysia as follows:

"Dengan ini memberi Notis bahawa Pemegang Saham Syarikat kami iaitu CHOR TSE MIN (K/P No. 730217-07- 5357) telah pada bulan September 2012 meletak jawatan. Oleh yang demikian mulai dari tarikh tersebut beliau tidak mempunyai sebarang hak atau kuasa untuk mewakili Syarikat kami dalam apa jua urusniaga dan juga untuk mengutip/memungut apa-apa wang. Juga dalam tempoh masa 3 hari ini Penama dikehendaki melaporkan diri ke Pejabat ini untuk menyelesaikan segala masalah berhubung dengan Syarikat kami. Jikalau tidak segala akibatnya hendaklah ditanggung oleh Penama sendiri. Dengan ini disiarkan Notis ini untuk makluman.

YOKOMASU MARKETING SDN BHD (904778)

113, 115 & 117, Jalan Kota Permai, Taman Kota Permai,

14000 Bukit Mertajam, Penang.

13 January 2013"

[10] According to the Plaintiff, the impugned Notice was calculated to expose the Plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the mind of a reasonable man. The Plaintiff further contended that a cursory reading of the impugned Notice would obviously mean that the Plaintiff is an unethical and dishonest businessman.

[11] On 21st November 2013, the Plaintiff brought a civil suit for defamation against the 1st and 2nd Defendants seeking for, amongst others, the following reliefs:

(a) his outstanding monthly salary of RM2,000.00 including his directorship fees of RM500.00 from August 2012 until the date of judgment;

(b) general damages;

(c) aggravated damages; and

(d) a formal apology by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in Sin Chew Newspaper and the Star Newspaper within 7 days of the date of judgment.

In The High Court

The Plaintiff's Case

[12] The Plaintiff's case is summarized as follows:

(a) The impugned Notice which was published in Sin Chew Newspaper on 15th January 2013 is defamatory of the Plaintiff. The words in the impugned Notice as p