Defamation claims require a contextual and holistic interpretation of statements to determine their defamatory nature, where justification can nullify allegations based on substantial truth.

Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This appeal concerns aspects of the law of defamation and in particular, what constitutes defamatory matter. The appeal was filed pursuant to the granting of leave on the following questions:

"1. In an impugned composite statement, some of which is defamatory and some may not, was the trial judge correct in holding that the plaintiff was prohibited in bringing about the defamatory action by complaining only of the defamatory statement", and

"2. In considering whether the sting of the defamation far outweighs the parameters of contextual interpretation, should the court only consider the following principles of interpretation of the true meanings of the impugned words:

(a) impugned words that are complained to the relevancy of the rest of the publication in a contextual setting;

(b) treating the impugned words that are complained as the bane and to discover, if relevancy is shown, if the rest of the other statements could possibly be the antidote."

[2] The appellants had filed a claim against the respondents for damages for defamation in the Kuala Lumpur High court in respect of statements made by the 1st respondent, Nurul lzzah Anwar, during a press conference on 7 March 2012. The High court, after a full trial, dismissed the appellants claim. The instant appeal arose from the decision of the court of Appeal which upheld the decision of the High court. The High court, in dismissing the appellants claim, had found that the appellants had failed to prove their claim against the respondents on two principal reasons, namely:

(a) that the appellants had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the impugned statements were defamatory of the appellants; and

(b) that even if the impugned statements were defamatory, the defendants had proved on the balance of probabilities, the defence of justification.

The Material Facts

[3] The relevant background facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are well stated in the judgments of the courts below and in the parties submissions. It is to the credit of the parties that most of the facts were agreed prior to trial. The salient facts, as far as they are relevant to the present appeal, can be restated as follows. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were in the court of first instance or by their names as abbreviated interchangeably.

[4] In the year 2007, the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd ("NFCorp") was established as the main integrator company of the National Feedlot Centre ("NFC") to fulfil the Governments policy and objective of increasing the national production of meat by reducing dependency on imported beef. The Chairman and Director of NFCorp ("the 2nd plaintiff ") is Dato Sri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail ("the 1st plaintiff ") who is the individual most responsible for the establishment and execution of a project to develop, promote, and nurture competency in the farming of beef and cattle for the production of beef and beef products known loosely as the NFC Project. Quite significantly, NFCorp was a family company wholly owned by the 1st plaintiff and his children.

[5] The NFC Project was funded by a soft loan of RM250 million from the Government for NFCorp to run it. Out of the RM250 million, all but a sum of RM71 million was drawn down pursuant to the Loan Agreement with the Government. The unutilised funds were then moved, on 12 February 2008, into a fixed deposit account held by the 2nd plaintiff in Public Bank. It was not in dispute that as at 16 February 2012, the fixed deposit account stood at RM71,395,617.00.

[6] In 2011, the operation and performance of the NFC Project was audited by the Auditor General. The findings were presented to Parliament in October 2011. The Auditor Generals report highlighted the failures of the NFC Project and in particular, the weaknesses in the implementation of the said Project. This disclosure not surprisingly drew the publics attention to NFCorp. Concerns were r