Melima Assets Sdn Bhd v Muhamad Arifpin Bin Mansor (CA-23NCvC-3-08/2021)

This action concerns a claim in defamation arising from a series of statements published by the Defendant in several WhatsApp groups and a Facebook page relating to a housing development known as Aman Plus Taman Kuantan Jaya.

The Plaintiffs are entities associated with the development and management of the housing project. The Defendant is a purchaser within the development.

The dispute did not arise in a vacuum. The evidence shows that, at the material time, a number of residents had raised concerns regarding low water pressure, alleged defects in the piping system, infrastructure issues and the adequacy of rectification works carried out by the Plaintiffs.

As a consequence of those concerns, the Defendant became actively involved in representing the interests of residents and acted as the chairman of a residents' task force established to communicate with the Plaintiffs and relevant authorities, including SPAN and the local authorities.

Against that backdrop, the Defendant published a number of statements in WhatsApp groups and on Facebook. The Plaintiffs contend that those publications crossed the line between legitimate consumer criticism and actionable defamation. In particular, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant falsely portrayed them as dishonest, protected by improper influence and involved in conduct suggestive of corruption.

The Defendant denies liability and contends that the publications merely reflected genuine concerns of residents, constituted fair comment on matters of common interest and were protected by qualified privilege. The Defendant also advances a counterclaim relating to alleged defects within the development.

Having considered the pleadings, evidence and submissions of parties, the Court identifies the following issues:

Whether the impugned statements are defamatory of the Plaintiffs;

Whether the Defendant is entitled to rely upon the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege;

If liability is established, the appropriate measure of damages; and

Whether the Defendant's counterclaim ought to succeed. Applicable Legal Principles [8] The law relating to defamation is well settled. [9] In Ayob bin Saud v TS Sambanthamurthi [1989] 1 MLJ 315, it was held that a plaintiff in defamation must establish:

publication of the words complained of;

reference to the plaintiff; and

that the words are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. [10] Similarly, in Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd v Lim Guan Eng [2015] 6 MLJ 113, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a statement is defamatory if it tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. [11] The test is objective. The Court is not concerned with the subjective intention of the publisher nor the subjective reaction of the plaintiff. The question is how the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the words when read as a whole and in their proper context. [12] The words complained of must be read as a whole and not in isolation. Context is critical. [13] In Yeoh Tseow Suan v Musa Hassan [2026] 3 CLJ 593, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the law of defamation seeks to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. Whilst robust criticism and public discourse are permissible, allegations conveying imputations of dishonesty, impropriety or misconduct without sufficient factual basis may attract liability. [14] The Court must therefore first determine whether the words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning before considering whether any recognised defence applies. Analysis & Findings The Impugned Publications [15] The principal statements relied upon by the Plaintiffs include the following:

"Rasanya pemaju kebal sebab ada cable ngan KPKT";

"komplen apa-apa, buat tak pun buat bodo je";

"pastu jawab lebih kurang, janji lepas tangan";

"yg taman depan kita, taman Aspen, MBK kata pelan hilang. Sebelum pelan kita hilang juga, kita report kat SPRM";

"kenapa CCC dapat dikeluarkan sebab banyak yang tak ikut spec";

"boleh dia orang ignore je arahan SPAN";

"tak tahu lah cable besar mana".

"Never trust any answer from Aland". [16] Publication of the statements is not disputed. Neither is there any real dispute that the statements referred to the Plaintiffs. [17] The real controversy concerns the meaning of those statements and whether they are protected by law. Whether The Statements Are Defamatory [18] Having carefully considered the words complained of, the Court finds it necessary to distinguish between two categories of publications. Ordinary Consumer Complaints [19] The first category comprises statements such as: i. "komplen apa-apa, buat tak pun buat bodo je"; ii. "pastu jawab lebih kurang, janji lepas tangan"; iii. "kenapa CCC dapat dikeluarkan sebab banyak yang tak ikut spec"; and iv. "boleh dia orang ignore je arahan SPAN". [20] These statements arose in the context of ongoing complaints concerning low water pressure, alleged defects, rectification works and communications between residents and the Plaintiffs. [21] Viewed objectively and in context, they represent criticism, dissatisfaction and frustration arising from an existing dispute concerning the quality of the development. [22] The Court accepts that the language used is robust and at times, harsh. However, not every harsh criticism is defamatory. [23] The ordinary reasonable reader would understand these statements as complaints regarding workmanship, responsiveness and compliance issues rather than allegations of corruption or dishonesty. [24] The Court therefore finds that these statements do not, standing alone, lower the Plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally beyond what may ordinarily be expected in a consumer dispute. Allegations Of Corruption, Improper Influence And Dishonesty [25] A different conclusion applies to the following statements: i. "Rasanya pemaju kebal sebab ada cable ngan KPKT"; ii. "Tak tahu lah cable besar mana"; and iii. "Sebelum pelan kita hilang juga, kita report kat SPRM". [26] In the Court's judgment, these statements carry a materially different sting. [27] In contemporary Malaysian society, references to having "cable" commonly suggest protection through powerful connections, political patronage or improper influence. [28] Likewise, the suggestion that a matter ought to be reported to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission because plans may "disappear" is capable of implying corruption, concealment or dishonest conduct. [29] These statements go beyond criticism of workmanship or regulatory compliance. They suggest that the Plaintiffs are able to evade accountability through improper means and that there may be conduct warranting investigation by anti-corruption authorities. [30] Such allegations are plainly capable of lowering the Plaintiffs in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. [31] The Court therefore finds that these statements are prima facie defamatory. The Defendant's Defences [32] Having found that the above statements are capable of defamatory meaning, the Court must now consider whether the Defendant succeeds on any recognised defence. Justification [33] The Defendant relies heavily upon evidence relating to water pressure issues, complaints lodged with SPAN, alleged noncompliance with piping specifications and dissatisfaction among residents. [34] The Court readily accepts that such complaints existed. [35] Indeed, the evidence establishes that there were genuine disputes between residents and the Plaintiffs concerning those matters. [36] However, the existence of technical complaints is fundamentally different from proving allegations of corruption, improper influence or dishonesty. [37] The sting of the statements identified by this Court lies not in the allegation that defects existed. Rather, it lies in the suggestion that the Plaintiffs were protected by powerful connections, engaged in dishonest conduct or were involved in matters warranting investigation by anti-corruption authorities. [38] No evidence was adduced to prove corruption, abuse of influence, concealment of documents, political patronage or any other dishonest conduct. [39] The Court therefore finds that the Defendant has failed to establish the substantial truth of those allegations. [40] Accordingly, the defence of justification fails. Fair Comment [41] The Court accepts that issues relating to housing defects, water supply and infrastructure are matters of common interest to purchasers and residents. [42] The Defendant was entitled to raise concerns and criticisms regarding those matters. [43] Indeed, the Court accepts that many of the Defendant's complaints were founded upon genuine concerns experienced by residents. [44] In Yeoh Tseow Suan v Musa Hassan [2026] 3 CLJ 593, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the defence of fair comment protects expressions of opinion on matters of public or common interest provided such comments are based on true or sufficiently established facts and are made honestly without malice. [45] The Court accepts that the Defendant was not acting as a stranger to the dispute. He was actively involved in representing residents who were experiencing genuine concerns relating to water pressure and alleged defects within the development. [46] However, the defence of fair comment does not extend to unsupported allegations of corruption, improper influence or dishonesty. [47] A person is entitled to criticise. A person is entitled to complain. A person is entitled to express dissatisfaction. [48] What a person is not entitled to do is to speculate about corruption or abuse of influence without a sufficient factual basis and then seek refuge under the banner of fair comment. [49] The Court therefore finds that the defence of fair comment succeeds only in relation to the ordinary complaint statements and not in relation to the allegations of corruption and improper influence. Qualified Privilege [50] The Court also accepts that the WhatsApp groups consisted of residents and purchasers who shared a common interest in matters affecting the quality, safety and value of their homes. [51] Accordingly, a reciprocal duty and corresponding interest existed between the Defendant and members of those groups. [52] In principle, the occasion therefore attracts qualified privilege. [53] However, the protection afforded by qualified privilege is not unlimited. [54] The Court accepts that allegations suggesting corruption, political patronage or improper influence exceeded what was reasonably necessary for the protection of the common interest shared by residents. [55] Those allegations moved beyond complaint and entered the realm of personal attack. [56] Accordingly, qualified privilege does not avail the Defendant in respect of those statements. Liability [57] The Court accepts that the Defendant had a legitimate right to voice concerns on behalf of residents regarding defects, infrastructure issues and regulatory compliance. [58] The Court further accepts that many of those concerns were genuine and arose from actual grievances experienced by residents. [59] However, the right to criticise does not include a licence to make allegations of corruption, political patronage or improper influence without a sufficient factual foundation. [60] It is at that point that the Defendant crossed the line separating legitimate criticism from actionable defamation. [61] The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs have established liability in respect of the following statements: i. "Rasanya pemaju kebal sebab ada cable ngan KPKT"; ii. "Tak tahu lah cable besar mana"; and iii. "Sebelum pelan kita hilang juga, kita report kat SPRM". [62] The remaining statements do not attract liability. Damages [63] The Plaintiffs seek general damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages and damages arising from the alleged cancellation of a sale transaction. [64] In assessing damages, the Court is guided by the principles discussed in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato' Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [1995] 2 MLJ 493. [65] The Court in MGG Pillai recognised that damages in defamation serve not merely a compensatory function but also a vindicatory function in restoring the plaintiff's reputation. [66] Relevant considerations include: i. the gravity of the libel; ii. the extent of publication; iii. the standing and reputation of the plaintiff; iv. the conduct of the defendant; and v. the surrounding circumstances of the case. [67] The Court notes that publication occurred primarily within WhatsApp groups and a Facebook community associated with the development. [68] Publication was therefore limited and not made to the public at large. [69] The Plaintiffs also contend that a prospective purchaser withdrew from a proposed purchase because of the Defendant's publications. [70] However, that purchaser was not called to testify. [71] Consequently, the Court is unable to conclude that any specific financial loss or commercial damage has been proven. [72] Nevertheless, this being an action in libel, injury to reputation is presumed once defamation is established. [73] The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to general damages for vindication of reputation and injury to standing. [74] Taking into account: i. the seriousness of the imputations; ii. the limited extent of publication; iii. the absence of proof of substantial pecuniary loss; iv. the context of an ongoing residential dispute; v. the absence of widespread republication; and vi. the Defendant's subsequent moderation and withdrawal of certain statements, the Court finds that an award of RM60,000.00 by way of general damages is fair, proportionate and sufficient to vindicate the Plaintiffs' reputation. Aggravated Damages [75] Aggravated damages are awarded only where the Defendant's conduct demonstrates malice, persistence, oppression or conduct aggravating the injury suffered. [76] As recognised in MGG Pillai, aggravated damages are not awarded automatically upon proof of defamation. [77] There must be evidence showing that the Defendant's conduct increased the injury suffered by the Plaintiffs through malice, persistence, arrogance, oppressive behaviour or refusal to retract the defamatory allegations. [78] The Court does not find such circumstances established in the present case. [79] Although some of the statements were defamatory, they arose within the context of genuine resident dissatisfaction concerning actual issues affecting the development. [80] The evidence does not establish the degree of malice necessary to justify aggravated damages. [81] Accordingly, the claim for aggravated damages is dismissed. Exemplary Damages [82] Exemplary damages remain exceptional. [83] As recognised in MGG Pillai, exemplary damages are generally reserved for cases involving oppressive conduct, calculated profit-making wrongdoing or conduct warranting punishment. [84] The present dispute arose from a residential disagreement rather than a calculated campaign designed for commercial gain. [85] The circumstances do not justify punitive sanction. [86] The claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Damages For Alleged Inducement Of Breach [87] The Plaintiffs further claim RM442,000.00 arising from the alleged cancellation of a sale transaction. [88] The Court finds that the evidence falls short of establishing that the cancellation occurred solely because of the Defendant's publications. [89] More importantly, the alleged purchaser was not called to testify. [90] The alleged causal connection therefore remains speculative and unproven. [91] This claim is accordingly dismissed. The Counterclaim [92] The Defendant's counterclaim concerns alleged defects relating to water pressure and infrastructure within the development. [93] The burden rests upon the Defendant to establish the defects complained of and to prove entitlement to the relief sought. [94] Having considered the evidence, the Court is unable to conclude that the Defendant has discharged that burden. [95] The Court notes that the Defendant was effectively the sole witness called in support of the counterclaim. [96] Whilst the Defendant was entitled to testify regarding his personal observations and experiences as a resident, many of the issues raised in the counterclaim involve technical questions relating to engineering design, water pressure systems, piping specifications and infrastructure adequacy. [97] Such matters fall outside ordinary lay knowledge. [98] No expert witness was called to assist the Court in determining: i. whether the alleged defects in fact existed; ii. whether there had been any failure to comply with applicable technical standards; iii. whether any non-compliance caused the complaints experienced by residents; or iv. whether any defects remained outstanding at the time of trial. [99] The evidence further shows that rectification works had been undertaken from time to time and that engagement had occurred with the relevant authorities. [100] In the absence of expert evidence, the Court is unable to determine whether any remaining complaints were attributable to design defects, construction defects, maintenance issues, usage patterns or other causes. [101] To make findings of technical defect solely on the basis of the Defendant's personal opinion would require the Court to engage in speculation. [102] The Court therefore finds that the Defendant has failed to establish the counterclaim on a balance of probabilities. [103] Accordingly, the counterclaim is dismissed. Conclusion And Orders [104] For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have succeeded in part in respect of the statements imputing corruption, improper influence and dishonesty. [105] Accordingly, this Court allows the Plaintiff's claim as follows:

Prayer (a) is allowed in the sum of RM60,000.00 only.

(ii) Prayer (b) is allowed.

(iii) Prayer (c) is allowed, but limited to the following statements: "Rasanya pemaju kebal sbb ada cable ngan KPKT" "Tak tahu lah cable besar mana" "sebelum pelan kita 'hilang' juga, kita report kat SPRM" The said statements shall be removed within fourteen (14) days from the date of this judgment.

(iv) Prayers (d)(i)-(iv) are allowed as prayed. In respect of prayer (d)(v), the apology shall be published in either Utusan Malaysia or Berita Harian within three (3) months from the date of this judgment.

Prayers (e), (f), (g), (h) and (j) are dismissed.

(vi) Prayer (i) is allowed. Interest at the rate of 5% per annum shall be imposed on the damages awarded, calculated from the date of this judgment until full and final settlement.

(vii) The Defendant's Counterclaim is dismissed.

(viii) Global costs of RM15,000.00 are awarded to the Plaintiff, subject to allocatur. Dated: June 2026 (SAMRY BIN MASRI) Judicial Commisioner High Court Kuantan Counsel for the Plaintiff : Tetuan Army Rais Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara No.1-2B, $ 1^{\mathrm{st}} $ Floor, PJU 8/3A Damansara Perdana 47820 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan Counsel for the : Tetuan Abdul Malik Zamri & Co Defendant Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara A23, Tingkat 2, Lorong Tun Ismail 9 Sri Dagangan 25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur