Tamilarasi A/P Balasundram v LIM HENG LOONG (BA-12B-77-08/2025)

LIM HENG LOONG

LIM THUNG XUAN

LIM JIT HAW

SALLY PEH CHEN WOON (No. K/P: 941022-14-6380)

LUCAS PEH ZI FONG (No. K/P: 970209-14-5807)

JONATHAN LEE ZHING YONG (No. K/P: 950225-07-5599) … RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN [Dalam Mahkamah Sesyen Shah Alam

Lim Heng Loong (No. K/P: 640508-05-5623)

Lim Thung Xuan (No K/P: 970814-05-5156)

Lim Jit Haw (No K/P: 950218-05-5055)

Sally Peh Chen Woon (No. K/P: 941022-14-6380)

Lucas Peh Zi Fong (No. K/P: 970209-14-5807)

Jonathan Lee Zhing Yong (No. K/P: 950225-07-5599) … Plaintif-Plaintif Dan Tamilarasi A/P Balasundram (No. K/P: 690506-10-5004) … Defendan] GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] In this judgment, the parties shall be referred to as if they were in the Sessions Court. [2] This is an appeal by the Defendant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (“SCJ”) on 31.7.2025 (after trial) to allow the Plaintiffs’ claim. [3] After perusal of the cause papers and after hearing submissions from the counsels, I have decided to dismiss the Defendant’s appeal with costs based on the reasonings which I shall explain hereafter. Background facts [4] The 1st Plaintiff is the father to the 2nd Plaintiff and 3rd Plaintiff. The 4th Plaintiff is the 3rd Plaintiff’s girlfriend. The 5th Plaintiff is the 4th Plaintiff’s brother. The 6th Plaintiff is working for the 4th Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs collectively own a number of units of condominium at Venice Hill Condominium. [5] The Defendant also owns one unit of condominium at Venice Hill Condominium. The Defendant was a committee member of the management corporation of Venice Hill Condominium (“Management Corporation”). The 3rd Plaintiff was elected as the treasurer of the Management Corporation but later resigned due to disagreements with the Defendant. [6] The 10th general meeting of the Management Corporation was fixed on 31.7.2022 (“MC 10”). The 1st Plaintiff, 3rd Plaintiff, 5th Plaintiff and 6th Plaintiff wanted to offer themselves as candidates. The Defendant did not offer herself for re-election but had campaigned for an opposing camp. [7] Following the events relating to MC 10, the Plaintiffs commenced a defamation suit against the Defendant for the impugned statement authored and published by the Defendant on 28.7.2022 in three WhatsApp groups comprising the owners of Venice Hill Condominium:

The WhatsApp group named “Tower 8 VH Residents” with 141 participants;

The WhatsApp group named “Visione 2030 (VH@1-9)” with 168 participants;

The WhatsApp group named “Venice Hill Owners” with 115 participants. [8] The impugned statement is reproduced as below: “the Lim family and Team contesting for MC 10

Lim Heng Loong or Sam (is the father of Lim jit haw) Lim Thung XUAN the daughter of Sam is nominating Lim Heng Loon or Sam a non owner/resident as MC candidate.

Lim Jit Haw MC 9 (son of Sam Lim Heng Loong)

Jonathan Lee Zhing Yong MC9 (staff of Lim Heng Loong/Lim Jit

Haw) Lucas Peh Ji Fong (brother of Sally Peh Chen Woon/brother in law of Lim Jit Haw)

Sally PEH Chen WOON (Daughter-in-law of Lim Heng Loong/fiancé of Lim Jit Haw and sister of Lucas Peh Zi Fong)

Seah Kok Boom (Steven) MC 7

Mohd Hairul Amri bin Mohd Redzuan MC 7,8,9

Lee Kooi Lan (staff of Lim Heng Loong)

Lai Chee Loong (Marcus) MC 7,9

Cheong See Fatt (Danny) MC 9 Everyone, the first 5 members are literally members of 1 family. Some owners were suggesting owners who don’t stay in VH should not become MC member. Here we have a non owner/resident nominated as MC candidate, where is the logic in this. Why is this family so desperate wanting to become MC candidate, just because they OWN almost 10 units as family or So that they can have the control on our finances and start with Projects? Or what? Everyone, One member of this family is good enough as MC candidate not 5 of them including their staff. At this moment we have RM2.5 mil in our maintenance fee Don’t come in just to do projects in the name of making VH into a better living environment. MC member being elected should have in mind the interest community at large and spend owners Money wisely. MC should not raise Our maintenance fees and spend our money saying we can turn around VH in 3 yrs time. Our property price will increase by then and so on. Most of the owners are here to stay and not planning to sell our property. Who is going to suffer in long run? It’s the Good paying owners who will suffer when maintenance fee are increased. Please choose your MC members wisely. MC should not be run by ONE family and their staffs. This is very dangerous. Our Original developer was run by ONE family, what happen to our money and property? Please think and vote wisely for our home. I am saying this because I am worried for our home and money. I have worked with all the above MC members. So when I say something like this means I have my own reasons. I was in MC 1, 2, 7, 8, 9. So I know what I am talking about. I am not contesting for mc this term. This is my humble opinion and my concern for PH, so think 100x before voting for above candidates.” (“Impugned Statement”) [9] The defences raised by the Defendant were: (a) The Impugned Statement did not specifically refer to the Plaintiffs; (b) Justification; (c) Fair Comment; (d) Qualified Privilege. [10] However, the SCJ had found the Defendant liable for defamation. There are two separate appeals arising from the decision of the SCJ:

this current appeal is the Defendant’s appeal against the SCJ’s decision to find the Defendant liable;

the other appeal (Appeal No. BA-12B-79-08/2025) is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the SCJ’s decision not to award damages. Summary of the decision by the SCJ [11] The SCJ found that the Impugned Statement implies that the Plaintiffs (as a family) will abuse their position if they are elected into the committee of the Management Corporation, similar to what the developer’s family has committed prior to this. The SCJ also found that the Defendant had not proven the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege. [12] However, the SCJ did not award damages. Instead, the SCJ ordered the Defendant to issue an apology, with the contents of the said apology to be agreed by both parties. The following reliefs were granted by the SCJ:

a mandatory injunction for the Defendant to remove the Impugned Statement from the three WhatsApp groups;

an order compelling the publication of an apology in a form to be agreed;

a prohibitory injunction to restrain the Defendant from repeating the Impugned Statement; and

costs of RM8,000.00. Summary of the Defendant’s case (in supporting the appeal) [13] The Defendant says that the Impugned Statement merely refers to the candidates who intend to contest for MC 10. It makes reference to certain family and staff’s relationship. It also expressed several concerns, which include matters relating to “family-controlled” committee and non-owner/resident candidate. There is also apprehension about the condominium’s finances, projects, fees and the past experiences when it was managed by one family. [14] The Defendant says that the Impugned Statement was connected to the election for the management committee. The Defendant argues that the references to relationships were based on information supplied by the Plaintiffs themselves or openly circulated among residents. [15] The Defendant also argues that the publication merely raises concerns over the suitability of candidates. The subject matter of governance, funds and election of the committee was a matter of legitimate interest and genuine concerns to all the residents. The publication merely signal caution, opinion and advocacy. It is not establishing a fact that the Plaintiff had stolen money. [16] The Defendant also says that she holds no personal grudges or ulterior motive to bring down the Plaintiffs. The Impugned Statement does not bring any benefit to the Defendant because she is not contesting. [17] The Defendant also points that the publication was made to a private community, and not to a mass publication. The audience within the private community had a direct interest to evaluate the candidates. [18] Lastly, the Defendant argues that there was no independent or neutral witness called by the Plaintiffs to establish that the reader understood the publication in the defamatory sense. Failure to do so had materially weakened the Plaintiffs’ case. Summary of the Plaintiffs’ case (in opposing the appeal) [19] The Plaintiffs submit that the Impugned Statement has to be read as a whole and be interpreted in its natural and ordinary meaning without support of any extrinsic evidence. [20] The Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendant had named all of the Plaintiffs in the Impugned Statement and all of them were referred to as one family. It is also clear that the Defendant had implied that the Plaintiffs will commit criminal breach of trust if they were to be elected, drawing comparison to what the developer family did previously. [21] The Plaintiffs also submit that the Defendant’s comments were not public interest at all. It was just the Defendant’s personal attack against the Plaintiffs to make sure the Plaintiffs would not be elected for MC 10. The law on defamation [22] Every person has a right to maintain his good reputation from false injurious remark. The law of defamation protects such a person’s reputation. The claimant must prove three things. Firstly, the statement was defamatory. Secondly, the statement referred to him. Thirdly, that it was published (that is, communicated to a third party). The onus will then shift to the defendant to prove any of the following three defences: justification (or in other words the truth of the utterance); fair comment (on a matter of public interest); or that it was made on a privileged occasion. [23] In Syed Husin Ali v. Sharikat Perchetakan Utusan Melayu Berhad & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ 56, Mohd Azmi J set out the defamatory test as follows: “Thus, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinion of others, although no one believes the statement to be true. Another test is: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally? The typical type of defamation is an attack upon the moral character of the plaintiff attributing crime, dishonesty, untruthfulness, ingratitude or cruelty.” [24] Similarly, in Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v. The China Press [1999] 1 MLJ 371, Gopal Sri Ram JCA said: “In my judgment, the test which is to be applied lies in the question: do the words published in their natural and ordinary meaning impute to the plaintiff any dishonourable or discreditable conduct or motives or a lack of integrity on his part? If the question invites an affirmative response, then the words complained of are defamatory.” Is the Impugned Statement defamatory? [25] The Defendant had painstakingly set out the relevant portions of the Impugned Statement and the corresponding arguments thereto in the table set out below: “the Lim family and Team contesting for MC 10” The Defendant asserts that these are true facts. There is no defamatory meaning. “Here we have a non-owner/resident nominated as MC candidate” The Defendant asserts that these are merely general comments. “Why is this family so desperate…” The Defendant asserts that this is merely a general statement. “Don’t come in just to do projects…” The Defendant asserts that this is a general statement. There was no reference to the Plaintiffs. “MC should not be run by ONE family and their staffs. This is very dangerous. Our Original developer was run by ONE family, what happen to our money and property?” The Defendant asserts that there was no reference to the Plaintiffs. These are merely general statements addressed to the residents. The developer issue are actual events. “Please think and vote wisely for out home. I am saying this because I am worried for our home and money…. So I know what I am talking about.” The Defendant is also asserting that there was no reference to the Plaintiffs. It is a general statement and it is a fair comment. The Defendant had a social, moral and legal duty to communicate to the residents. And the residents had a legitimate interest in receiving. [26] However, I do not accept the Defendant’s approach and treatment of the Impugned Statement. The Defendant is only reading into portions of the Impugned Statement disjunctively, leaving out the defamatory “sting” and the innuendo that follows. In Lim Guan Eng v. Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] CLJU 388, Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid JCA said: “[38] In determining the meaning of the Impugned Statements, we are of the view that this court must look into consideration of the following: -

the Impugned Statements must be read in whole;

(ii) it is not open for the appellant to select words of the sentence; and

(iii) the Impugned Statements must be read in the context of the entire publication.” [27] A defamatory sting is the core, harmful allegation or gist of a statement that damages a person’s reputation. This represents the specific “punch’ of the defamation. It is what an ordinary, reasonable person would interpret as the main insult or accusation. Innuendo, conversely, refers to hidden or secondary meanings where words that seem harmless on the surface convey a highly damaging reputation. Innuendo requires reading “between the lines”. [28] The essence of a defamatory sting and innuendo was explained in Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. The New Straits Times Press (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [2010] 2 MLJ 492 as follows: “The plaintiff would therefore have the burden of proving that the words in question conveyed a defamatory imputation. In this regard, the first task is to ascertain the meaning of the statement or publication. This is not always easy as the words in question, the essence of any defamation claim, may be understood differently by different people. The plaintiff can therefore rely on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words or the innuendo meaning. The natural and ordinary meaning would involve the literal meaning as well as any inferences that could be taken based on general knowledge and experience of human affairs. An innuendo meaning would be arrived at by an additional consideration or assistance of extrinsic facts not generally known. As the analysis of the offending words involves an objective test, the meaning intended by the publisher, however noble, is irrelevant. The proper approach would also be to consider the words complained of in the context of the whole article. A plaintiff cannot select an isolated passage in an article and complain of that alone if other parts of the article throw a different light on that passage.” [29] By reading the Impugned Statement as a whole, it is clear that the Defendant had made accusations that the Plaintiffs will commit criminal breach of trust if they were to be elected, drawing comparison to what the developer family did previously. As such, I agree and accept the Plaintiffs’ corresponding arguments against the relevant portions of the Impugned Statement set out in the table below: “Why is this family so desperate wanting to become MC candidate, just because they own almost 10 unit as family or So that they can These words clearly suggest that the Plaintiffs wanted to be elected into the management committee to have the control of our finances and start with Projects?” start their own personal projects with the residents’ money. “One member of this family is good enough as MC candidate not 5 of them including their staff.” “Don’t come in just to do projects in the name of making VH into a better living environment.” “MC member being elected should have in mind the interest community at large and spend owners Money wisely.” “MC should not raise Our maintenance fees and spend our money saying we can turn around VH in 3 yrs time.” “Our property price will increase by then and so on.” “Most of the owners are here to stay and not planning to sell our property.” “Who is going to suffer in long run?” The words “just to do projects…” and “dangerous” are serious allegations. It suggests that the Plaintiffs’ sole purpose of going into MC 10 was to conduct their own projects using the residents’ funds. “It’s the Good paying owners who will suffer when maintenance fee are increased.” “MC should not be run by ONE family and their staffs. This is very dangerous.” “Our Original developer was run by ONE family, what happen to our money and property?” In the defence, the Defendant had stated that the developer “salah-uruskan hal ehwal kewangan VH Condo di mana ianya telah mengakibatkan kerugian kepada penduduk-pendududk VH Condo dan/atau harta bersama… VH Condo terpaksa dijual bagi tujuan meyelesaikan tunggakan tersebut.” Thus, the Defendant is drawing an analogy of the family-run “original developer” to the Plaintiffs (alleged as a family”). “Please think and vote wisely for our home. I am saying this because I am worried for our home and money. I have worked with all the above MC members. So when I say something like this means I have my own reasons. I was in MC 1, 2, 7, 8, 9. So I know what I am talking about.” The Defendant it trying to convince the reader of the accuracy of the Impugned Statement with her personal working experience with the Plaintiffs and her vast experience in the management committee. The Defendant is indirectly saying that she worked with the Plaintiffs and knew the ulterior motive of the Plaintiffs. [30] I therefore accept the argument that any reasonable reader, when reading the Impugned Statement, would have in mind that the Plaintiffs desperately wanted to come as a family purely to misuse the owners’ funds by increasing the maintenance charges to do their own projects on the excuse that they will improve the condominium, like what the developer family had done previously. Reference to the Plaintiffs [31] By reading of the Impugned Statement as a whole, I also find that it is clear that the Defendant had named all of the Plaintiffs and all of them were referred to as one family throughout the Impugned Statement. As such, I agree and accept the Plaintiffs’ corresponding arguments against the relevant portions of the Impugned Statement set out in the table below: “the Lim family and Team contesting for MC 10” “Everyone, the first 5 members are literally members of 1 family.” The first 5 of the named candidates are the Plaintiffs. All the Plaintiffs were referred as “1 family”. “Some owners were suggesting owners who don’t stay in VH should not become MC member. Here we have a non owner/resident nominated as MC candidate, where is the logic in this.” The 1st Plaintiff and 2nd Plaintiff were referred to. “Why is this family so desperate wanting to become MC candidate, just because they OWN almost 10 units as family or So that they can have the control on our finances and start with Projects? All the Plaintiffs were again referred to as family. “One member of this family is good enough as MC candidate not 5 of them including their staff.” All the Plaintiffs were again referred to as family. “Don’t come in just to do projects in the name of making VH into a better living environment.” The Plaintiffs were accused of coming into the committee for the sole purpose of doing project. “MC should not be run by ONE family and their staffs. This is very dangerous. “ONE family” would refer to the Plaintiffs. Defence of justification [32] In Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1966] 2 MLJ 66, Barakbah CJ (Malaya) stated as follows: “Where the plaintiff proves publication of defamatory words it is for the defendant if he wishes to set up the defence of justification to plead and prove the facts on which he relies to show justification. It is for the defence to show that the defamatory imputation is true.” [33] On the defence of justification, the Defendant had attempted to rely on the 3rd Plaintiff’s statement in respect of special projects. But as rightly pointed out by the Plaintiffs, all of the Plaintiffs’ statement which the Defendant is attempting to refer to are all taken out of context: The 3rd Plaintiff’s letter in RR Vol. 7, pg1776 “As some of you are aware, my family and I will be running for the upcoming AGM to be elected as management committee (“MC10”) members. If our vision of VHR does not align with most owners, we will remain as a silent owner within the community and we will also not participate in MC10, because we don’t plan to go against the majority The Defendant had relied on these words to show that the Plaintiffs desperately wanted to join the management committee to control the finances just to do their own project. However, there is nothing in these words can mean the Plaintiffs were desperate to become committee members to run their own project. If most owners believe in our vision, we must set up MC10 properly to implement this direction If you believe in my family vison for VRL, then I have created a Whatsapp group called VHRL. The objective of this group chat is to create an owner’s movement that can decide on the charter priority VHRL for the next 3-5 years. It is not to gossip, spread rumours, or falsely accuse anybody Together, as owners, we need to plan for the long-term future for VHRL. If most owners find this report reasonable and share the see vision as my family, then please join this movement.” The 3rd Plaintiff’s Whatsapp message in RR Vol. 6, pg1433 “Good morning everyone, I have decided to go ahead & run for MC10 as well-this will be my family last ditch effort to try and stabilies VH, which was our initial plain in MC9 We will be putting in a lot of effort to make sure that there will be no internal arguments amongst us if we win the AGM so that we are one voice. I hope you are willing to vote for us in the upcoming AGM...” The 3rd Plaintiff’s letter in RR Vol.7, pg1776 “IT IS CALLED VENICE HILL RESORT LIVING, NOT VENICE HILL KONDOMINIUM “The reason why I insist on referring this property VHRL is because it is supposed to be called VENICE HILL RESORT LIVING, not Venice Hil Kondominium! VHRL was designed to be luxurious and comfortable property that has a club house, golf course, beautiful nature environment, and large community. Please unite and restore this property to the name “Venice Hill Resort Living” and say it with pride that you are an owner in this community” The 3rd Plaintiff’s letter in RR Vol.7, pg1770 “If we receive this money, we should set it aside for special projects that can improve the quality of VHRL, not simply spend it for the day-to-day operation of managing the property…” Although the 3rd Plaintiff did suggest increasing the maintenance charges, it cannot be read to mean that the Plaintiffs will run their own projects because the existing maintenance charges collection is not enough. The word “special projects” used by the 3rd Plaintiff were meant to improve the quality of VHRL by using the uncollected maintenance charges, not to run their own projects. The minutes of meeting in RR Vol. 7, pg1874 “LJH states that the AGM may potentially consider future financial planning for the expenditure in Venice Hills after the repair and restoration of common facilities. There might be items in the AGM agenda to consider, which may include increasing the maintenance fee, increasing car park rental prices and increasing car clamp penalty items.” The 3rd Plaintiff’s Whatsapp Text in RR Vol. 6, pg1439 “I don’t, I don’t have a plan except to raise maintenance fees. But I’m worried Mr Chin will attack me again” None of these words relied on by the Defendant can show that the Plaintiffs wanted to run their own projects with owners’ money. Words said by the 3rd Plaintiff in a meeting in RR Vol. 1, pg156 LJH Not only savings, I also want to spend. And actually, in the past few years, all previous MC Committee had been saving a lot of money. Last year, we have a profit of RM1.2 million. This year before, we had a profit of RM640,000. And None of these words relied on by the Defendant can show that the Plaintiffs wanted to spend, using the owners’ money, for someone on their side. every year has been, and this money will grow bigger and bigger because the saving is more than the expenditure. And also more and more people selling houses and also easier to get a management fee. LJH Correct. They are going to be very greedy. So, we need to make sure how we allocate this money properly, so that we slowly, either break even every year, or we actually spend more than we earn, but for a good benefit. Ok? Like, you are right, everybody who wants to sit on MC, or wants to benefit Venice Hill, but they all have this one weakness….. So, now, if I can tell you, MC9 will be the only MC where it's the easiest to get the a majority vote on this type of new system. So, I am thinking better we establish it now, and quicky spend the money wisely, so that in the future, there is not much greedy incentive for people to fight for MC position. It will also make sure any AGM you do, smoother also.” Words said by the 3rd Plaintiff during a meeting in RR Vol. 6, pg1520 LJH …..I want to bring this thing up lah because I came from Australia. In Australia, the managing agent is actually the person who can work together with the developer, to develop the building, as well as auction out the building, sell the building. Then after they sell the building, they can also create like a committee lah. Like the units and all these lah. Then they are the ones who manage the body corporate, they are the ones who manage the maintenance and all that. Everything goes through them, and this is something that is documented out for all the owners, as well as the tenants to see how much they take a percentage off, in all of this, so that they can make a profit also. What I am trying to talk to you today is businessman to businessman. Transpacc job in Veniece Hill is a shit job. Ok? You are only getting RM35,000 a month, but Transpacc takes the brunt of all the heat between the MC members, all the heat between the people who are not MC members who think they are, all the heat amongst the owners, and not to mention whatever gangsters they have here… Words said by the 3rd Plaintiff in a meeting in RR Vol. 6, pg1531 LJH You are a businessman. What I'm giving you, a proposal to net benefit everybody. It will benefit you, it will benefit all the owners, because there is a black and white and it will benefit the MC members because we can trust you to make the right technical decision. You see, I give you example with lift again. Right now, nobody here knows anything about lift. Cakatan parks his technician here for office hour, or every day, or whatever. So, any issue happens,Cakatan technician will go in. Cakatan technician will identify what is the problem. So, that in accounting, there is no check and balance because the problem identified by Cakatan. The supplier is Cakatan. The person providing the solution is Cakatan, and the person providing the cost is Cakatan after the work has been done. They approve the work first, then only they bill us. So, these are four things that are major no-no in accounting. So, we need somebody, we don’t have anybody, we need you to find somebody who can check against Cakatan technician to see whatever he say makes sense or not, his prices fair or not. BHT That means, somebody who is in lift industry. LJH Correct. And if this comes under Tanspacc, I don’t see any problem – BHT Ok. If you say getting additional manpower just solely to focus on all the lifts’ condition here – LJH Correct. And this is – BHT That is the different matter. LJH Yes. And this is something I want to sit down together with HR department. I want a specialist in each of these aspects, all parked under Transpacc, and then I make it very honest with them. You can go and source your own suppliers. You can say whatever supplier you source you get a 10%. Words said by the 3rd Plaintiff in a meeting in RR Vol. 6, pg1545 TB I asked you to look into the RA matter. The reason I Nothing in this statements can prove that the Plaintiffs, once elected, will misuse the owners’ money. wanted to be here as a chairperson, because I wanted to tell you what are the pending matters that you all can take over and run. But, here, you people want to do this, want to do that, we ok. You all are new, we give you the time to do it. But you cannot come and tell me we cannot do anything because of the chairperson. Understand or not? Most of the resolution is made down there by whom? By you guys, right? Did I say yes or no to anything? LJH But every time I type, I type with majority. The fact that the 3rd Plaintiff, 4th Plaintiff and 6th Plaintiff collectively resigned as the committee members for the 9th term of the Management Committee on 7.2.2022 This fact can only show that the 3rd, 4th and 6th Plaintiff resigned together. It is not sufficient to prove the fact that the Plaintiffs will collude to misuse the owners’ funds if they were elected. [34] Apart from the 3rd Plaintiff’s words, the Defendant had also relied on other residents’ comments to prove that her allegations of the Plaintiffs misusing the owners’ money as true. However, I accept that, similarly, these residents’ comments are mere unproven allegations and speculations. All of these comments do not prove the fact that the Plaintiffs, when elected, will use the owners’ money to fund their own projects. [35] I therefore do not accept the Defendant’s defence of justification. Defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest [36] To constitute fair comment, the comment must be based on facts. In Dato’ Seri Dr. Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail v. Mohd Rafizi Ramli [2022] 5 CLJ 487, the Federal Court held: “[24] The High Court correctly directed itself in law that in order to succeed in his defence of fair comment, the respondent will need to establish the four elements in Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam v Goh Chok Tong [1989] 3 MLJ 1; (PC) (Joshua Benjamin):

the words complained of are comment, although they may consist or include inferences of fact;

the comment is on a matter of public interest;

the comment is based on facts; and

the comment is one which a fair-minded person can honestly make on the facts proved.” [37] In relying on the defence of fair comment, the Defendant says that her statement that the Plaintiffs had attempted to misuse the owners’ funds for their own projects was based on her previous dealings with the 3rd, 4th and 6th Plaintiffs. [38] However, there is no evidence to show or support the Plaintiffs’ misconduct or tendency to misuse the owners’ funds for their own projects. The 3rd Plaintiff’s proposal of increasing the maintenance charges was purely for the benefit of the condominium. Similarly, the 3rd Plaintiff’s suggestion of spending the owners’ money was also for the benefit of the condominium. There is nothing to support the Defendant’s comments that the Plaintiffs, as a family, once elected, will misuse the owners’ funds for their own benefit. [39] I also find that the Defendant’s comments are not of public interest at all. It was just the Defendant’s personal attack against the Plaintiffs. As such, I do not accept the Defendant’s defence of fair comment. Defence of qualified privilege [40] In Dato’ Sri Dr Mohd Salleh bin Ismail v. Nurul Izzah Anwar & Anor [2018] 9 CLJ 285, the Court of Appeal explains the elements of qualified privilege as: “[55] A defence of qualified privilege is founded on the need or duty on the part of the alleged defamer to impart information to the public at large and that there is a duty on the part of the public to receive that information. In a defence of qualified privilege, unlike justification, truth is not a pre-requisite but it can only succeed if there is no malice in such publication. If untrue defamatory allegations are published on an occasion of privilege, they will be protected from a claim for defamation. Although the law of defamation exists to protect reputations, it is recognised that in particular situations it is to the benefit of society generally for people to be able to communicate without the fear of being sued for defamation. This is so despite the risk that a person’s reputation will be damaged and they will not be able to restore it by bringing a claim for defamation. Its rationale resides in the wider consideration that a general public good in such exercise overrides the need to protect individual reputation.” [41] On the defence of qualified privilege, I find that the Impugned Statement is nothing more than the Defendant’s personal attack against the Plaintiffs, which is not of public interest at all. The Defendant had not verified any of the information in the Impugned Statement. The 3rd Plaintiff’s statement was also distorted by the Defendant. The Defendant had also failed to take any steps to verify the allegations and comments made by the other residents. [42] Hence, I do not accept the Defendant’s defence of qualified privilege. Other issues raised by the Defendant [43] The Defendant had argued that there were no independent or neutral witnesses called by the Plaintiffs to establish that the reader understood the publication in the defamatory sense. However, I agree based on the authorities of Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v. The China Press [1999] 1 MLJ 371 and Lim Guan Eng v Datuk Tan Teik Chen & Anor [2025] CLJU 388, that interpreting an impugned statement need not be supported by extrinsic evidence. Conclusion [44] Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at RM4,000.00. Dated the 1st of July 2026. (SEOW HOCK PENG) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Counsel: For the Appellant/Defendant : Rasvinder Kaur Sodhi (Messrs Rasvin Sodhi & Co) For the Respondents/Plaintiffs: Jonas Lee Fook Khong Wong Sher Yi (Messrs Low & Partners)

Syed Husin Ali v. Sharikat Perchetakan Utusan Melayu

Chok Foo Choo @ Chok Kee Lian v. The China Press [1999]

Lim Guan Eng v. Datuk Tan Teik Cheng & Anor [2025] CLJU 388

Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v. The New Straits Times

Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1966] 2 MLJ 66

Dato’ Seri Dr. Mohamad Salleh bin Ismail v. Mohd Rafizi

Dato’ Sri Dr Mohd Salleh bin Ismail v. Nurul Izzah Anwar &