[2015] 1 LNS 1059 (HC)
There was no evidence led, to prove any damages that the plaintiff had suffered arising from the negligence of the defendant issuing the first and second letters, and the statement of account. Understandably, the plaintiff would have experienced anxiety and inconvenience, but that does not amount to a claimable damages. The issue is whether the contents of the first letter were defamatory. Words that tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society are deemed to be defamatory; the test is whether the words in their natural and ordinary meaning, will impute the plaintiff of any dishonourable conduct or a lack of integrity on his part. There is no presumption that an unsealed or sealed letter will be read by third parties, unless it is reasonable to expect that the letter concerned, will in the ordinary course of events, be opened by third parties. There have been decided cases, where the courts have held that it is expected that letters addressed to offices would be opened by the staff. In any event, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that the first letter had been read by a third party. The extent of the publication is only a factor to be considered in the award of damages, as the wider the publication, the higher the damages. Datuk Ganesan and Subashini acted for the Defendant.