KOMARKCORP BERHAD v THE EDGE COMMUNICATION SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Illustrates the reference element of defamation and the importance of reading an allegedly defamatory article as a whole, holding that where the words are directed at a group of wrongdoers and portray the plaintiff as a victim rather than a participant, they do not refer to the plaintiff and no question of defamatory meaning arises.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns a defamation claim by a listed company over a news article about share-price manipulation, and whether the impugned words referred to the company at all. The appellant, a company listed on the main market of the stock exchange whose group manufactures self-adhesive labels, packaging materials and face masks, complained of an article published by the respondent, a financial news publisher, headlined about the hidden hands behind a penny-stock surge. The impugned paragraph stated that the authorities were investigating a group of individuals who controlled as many as sixty companies and appeared to manipulate share prices and siphon out funds through cash calls and asset acquisitions, with talk of money-laundering activities; the article included a table listing about thirty-four companies, among them the appellant. The appellant demanded an apology, which the respondent refused, and it sued for defamation. The High Court dismissed the claim, and the appellant appealed. The central question was whether the impugned words referred to the appellant. Reading the article as a whole, the Court held that the impugned paragraph was directed at a group of individuals who were the alleged perpetrators under investigation, and that the appellant was portrayed not as a participant in the alleged wrongdoing but as one of the companies that were the victims of the scheme orchestrated by those individuals. It emphasised that the offending words should not be read in isolation, and that reading the article as a whole showed that any sting was neutralised by the context. Holding that the words did not refer to the appellant, the Court considered it unnecessary to go on to decide whether the words were defamatory or to address the defences of justification and qualified privilege. Finding no appealable error, it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision below with costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the reference element of defamation and of the importance of reading an article as a whole.