JUDGMENT
[1] The appellant, Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd (also known as RAGM), filed an action against the respondent for libel and malicious falsehood. On 17 May 2016, the High Court dismissed the claim and on 21 October 2016, the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal. Hence, the present appeal before us.
[2] Leave to appeal to this court was granted to the appellant, on 16 October 2017, on the following questions of law:
(i) whether the subjective notion of 'the values of society as time progresses in interpreting the fundamental right to freedom of speech to reflect the present day values of society' as enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v. Hue Shieh Lee [2016] MLRAU 498 vide Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: 1-02(NCVC)-996-05-2016 by reference to the decision in Nor Anak Nyawai & Ors v. Borneo Pulp Plantation Sdn Bhd & Ors [2001] 1 MLRH 304; [2001] 6 MLJ 241; [2001] 2 CLJ 769; [2001] 2 AMR 2222 and Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1995] 2 MLRH 261; [1995] 2 MLJ 476; [1995] 3 CLJ 279; [1995] 2 AMR 1913 is the new test for determining if the words complained of are prima facie defamatory, in Malaysia? ('Question 1');
(ii) whether the criteria for determining the right of an activist or individual to freedom of speech as set out by the Court of Appeal in Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd v. Hue Shieh Lee [2016] MLRAU 498 vide Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No: 1-02(NCVC)-996-05-2016 by reference to the decision in Dato' Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato' Ombi Syed Alwi Syed Idrus [1980] 1 MLRA 18; [1981] 1 MLJ 29; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 98 or alternatively as previously enunciated in Lee Kuan Yew v. Chin Vui Khen & Anor [1989] 4 MLRH 686 applies in Malaysia? ('Question 2');