SYNERGY PROMENADE Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A company whose defamation claims against a publisher were struck out under Order 18 rule 19, and which featured in related litigation over remote testimony.

Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd appears in the corpus in defamation proceedings against a newspaper publisher and in a matter concerning remote testimony in related litigation.

Two connected matters concerned the company's defamation claims. In each, the court struck out the plaintiff's claim for defamation against the defendants under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court set out the terms of Order 18 rule 19, noted that no evidence is admissible on an application under sub-paragraph (1)(a), and observed that the summary striking-out procedure applies in a plain and obvious case, holding that these were such cases. It also referred to Order 34 rule 1, under which the court may, of its own motion, give directions for the just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings. In the upshot, the court struck out the claims against the defendants.

A separate, related matter concerned an application touching remote testimony, where the court's framing recorded themes of public interest, the interest of justice, the court's inherent powers and judicial discretion, and practical considerations, in litigation in which the company was among numerous defendants alongside a development authority and its investment entity.

Together the proceedings show a company both pursuing defamation claims that were summarily struck out and featuring in wider litigation where the reception of evidence by remote means was in issue. The narrative refers to the individual defendants and other natural persons by their role rather than by name, consistent with the treatment of natural persons appearing only as parties, reports the statutory provisions and doctrines the courts identified, and states outcomes only as recorded, without expressing any view on the merits of the defamation allegations. The juxtaposition of struck-out defamation claims with a matter over remote testimony shows the company both initiating claims that were summarily disposed of and featuring in wider litigation over how evidence is received.