1. ) DATO' K. KUMARAENDRAN 2. ) DEVKUMAR A/L K. KUMARAENDRAN v 1. ) ALBERT A/L ANTONI TASS 2. ) Selvaraja Namchivayam

Case Significance

Illustrates the three elements of libel and the strict requirement that a defendant plead full particulars of each defamation defence, holding that an offer-of-amends defence under section 7 of the Defamation Act 1957 fails where no particulars are pleaded and no offer of amends is made.

This High Court decision concerns a libel claim brought by two advocates and solicitors over the contents of a letter written in the course of related litigation, and the pleading requirements for defamation defences. The plaintiffs, who were partners in a law firm, complained that a letter dated 23 August 2021, written by a solicitor acting for the second defendant in a debt-recovery suit, defamed them. They sued both that solicitor and the second defendant, his client, for libel; after the solicitor died, the plaintiffs discontinued against him but continued the suit against the client. The question was whether the client was liable for the libel or had a defence. The court set out the three elements of libel, namely that the impugned words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning or by innuendo, that they refer to the plaintiffs, and that they were published to third parties, and found those elements established. It then examined the defences relied on, including justification, qualified privilege and the statutory offer-of-amends defence under section 7 of the Defamation Act 1957. The court emphasised that a defendant must plead not only the specific defence but the particulars supporting it, and that a failure to plead the necessary particulars is fatal. It held that the defendant could not rely on the section 7 defence, having neither pleaded the required particulars nor made any offer of amends, and that the other defences likewise failed. Finding the client liable in libel, the court granted a declaration, an injunction, an order for an apology and damages of RM200,000.00, together with interest and costs of RM30,000.00. The judgment is a useful illustration of the elements of libel and of the strict pleading requirements governing defamation defences, particularly the need to plead full particulars and, for an offer-of-amends defence, an actual offer.