1. ) AIDA PHANG BINTI ABDULLAH 2. ) TAN WAI PING 3. ) SHEREEN LIM BINTI ABDULLAH 4. ) CHEW CHIN SWEE 5. ) DATO' NGIAM FOON v LEE SIEW MEI

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the elements of defamation and the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege in a community-association dispute, with general damages awarded to each plaintiff whose reputation was found to have been defamed.

This High Court decision resolves a set of consolidated defamation suits arising from a dispute within a residential community society, of which the present suit was the principal action. In it, five plaintiffs — office-holders and property representatives connected with the society — sued the defendant over a series of statements they said were defamatory of them, whether collectively or individually. The court had to decide, for each impugned statement, whether it had been published or caused to be published by the defendant, whether it referred to the plaintiffs and bore a defamatory meaning, and whether the defendant could rely on defences of justification, fair comment or qualified privilege. After a lengthy trial, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs on this suit. It allowed the reliefs sought in the relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim, including injunctive and declaratory relief with a fourteen-day compliance period for one prayer, and awarded general damages of RM50,000.00 to each of the plaintiffs with interest at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full settlement. Considering the factors in Order 59 rule 16 of the Rules of Court 2012 — a trial spanning seventeen days with several witnesses and comprehensive written submissions — the court ordered costs of RM80,000.00 for this suit, together with interest on costs at 5% per annum, all subject to allocatur. The two related suits brought by the opposing party were dismissed. The judgment illustrates how the courts apply the elements of defamation and the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege in a hard-fought dispute among members of a community association. The court's approach was to test each pleaded statement against the ordinary meaning it would convey to a reasonable reader, and to require the defendant to prove the substantial truth of any statement said to be justified; where the defences of fair comment or qualified privilege were raised, it examined whether the comment concerned a matter of public interest and whether the occasion of publication attracted privilege.