[2020] 2 MLRA 391
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Rohana Yusuf PCA, Azahar Mohamed CJM, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Idrus Harun FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-10-02-2019(B)]
Rohana Yusuf PCA, Azahar Mohamed CJM, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Idrus Harun FCJJ


Azahar Mohamed CJM:


[1] The appellant sued the respondent for defamation. The courts below came to different findings. The High Court after a full trial, allowed the appellant's claim. The Court of Appeal took a contrary view. The Court of Appeal set aside the order of the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The appellant was granted leave to appeal on four questions of law. Hence, the present appeal before us, which in substance arose from the reversal by the Court of Appeal of the decision of the High Court. After hearing the parties, we adjourned the matter for our consideration. We now give our decision and the grounds for the same.

[2] We will describe the parties in this judgment as they appeared in the High Court, namely the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.

Background Facts

[3] The background facts are uncontroverted. We will only highlight in the following paragraphs the pertinent facts in so far as they are relevant to the issues that arise for our decision in this appeal.

[4] At all material times, the plaintiff is the developer of a piece of commercial property known as the Amcorp Trade Centre ("ATC"), which comprises the PJ Tower, Amcorp Tower, Melawangi Tower and Amcorp Mall in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

[5] The defendant at the material time was a member of the Amcorp Trade Centre Owners and Tenant Association ("the Association"). His late wife purchased a unit in the Melawangi Tower.

[6] The plaintiff's cause of action in defamation is premised on two documents, namely:

(a) a letter dated 25 June 2008 entitled "Complaint on the conduct of AGM on 8 April 2008 and request for EGM" ("the letter"); and

(b) an e-mail dated 13 October 2008 entitled "Amcorp Amended Letters" ("the e-mail").

Sign up to view full cases Login