Businessman fails in defamation bid over police reports alleging armed threat

 The Court of Appeal says Lim Kok Han failed to prove that Tai Boon Wee, a director of GIIB Holdings Bhd, published or circulated police reports alleging an armed threat.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed businessman Lim Kok Han’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out his defamation suit.

PUTRAJAYA:

A businessman who claimed he was defamed through two police reports alleging that he threatened a man with a pistol has lost his appeal after failing to prove that the reports were published or circulated by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Lim Kok Han’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out his defamation suit.

The three-member bench comprising Justices Azman Abdullah, Ahmad Kamal Shahid and Latifah Tahar also ordered Lim to pay Tai Boon Wee RM30,000 in costs.

The dispute arose from two police reports lodged by Tai, a director of listed company GIIB Holdings Bhd, on June 14 and 15, 2023.

In the reports, Tai alleged that Lim had threatened him during a confrontation and that a pistol tucked into Lim’s trousers became visible when he raised his arms.

Tai said the alleged presence of the firearm, together with what had happened during the confrontation, prompted him to lodge the police reports.

Lim claimed the statements were defamatory and relied on a WhatsApp message and material published on a website to support his case.

However, Tai denied republishing or disseminating the reports and maintained there was no evidence linking him to their alleged publication.

His lawyers, R Kamalanathan, Vinod Kamalanathan and Aisyah Imanina, argued that publication to a third party was an essential element of a defamation claim.

They said Lim failed to establish that Tai had published, circulated or caused the reports to reach the people or platforms on which he relied.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that Lim, represented by lawyers Lee Keng Fatt and Lim Han Ying, had failed to prove that Tai was responsible for publishing the alleged defamatory material.

It therefore found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to strike out the suit.

Tai had relied on justification as a defence and also argued that statements in his police reports were protected by absolute privilege because they were made to the police under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, the Court of Appeal did not have to determine those issues after finding that Lim had failed to establish publication in the first place.

The dispute forms part of a wider corporate battle between the two men. Tai previously testified that a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officer instructed him to meet Lim at a restaurant in Publika, Kuala Lumpur, on June 2, 2023, while Tai was facing an investigation.

According to Tai’s testimony, Lim wanted board seats and control over GIIB shareholdings. Tai claimed that when he refused, Lim pulled back his shirt to reveal a pistol tucked into his trousers and threatened him.

Tai referred to a Bloomberg report that alleged a wider “corporate mafia” scheme involving a WhatsApp group, hostile takeover tactics, attempts to depress share prices and alleged pressure involving MACC.

Those allegations were not determined by the Court of Appeal in the defamation appeal. - FMT