Ex-arbitration centre head fails in libel appeal against company

2026-03-24 - 06:00

The Court of Appeal dismissed N Sundra Rajoo’s libel appeal over the contents of a poison-pen letter and ordered him to pay Leaderonomics costs of RM30,000. PUTRAJAYA: Former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) director N Sundra Rajoo lost his libel appeal after the Court of Appeal ruled he had failed to prove that a poison‐pen letter about him was published from a device linked to Leaderonomics. Justice Choo Kah Sing, delivering the unanimous decision of a three‐member bench, said Sundra was unable to establish that the publication had originated from a device supplied by the social enterprise to its then employee, the late V Huganeswaran. N Sundra Rajoo. “The appellant (Sundra) did not satisfy this court that the High Court judge was so plainly wrong in his overall reasoning in coming to the final decision (to) warrant interference from this court,” Choo said in a recently released judgment. The bench, also comprising Justice Supang Lian, its chairman, and Justice Shahnaz Sulaiman, ordered Sundra to pay Leaderonomics RM30,000 in costs. In his 2022 lawsuit, Sundra alleged that the poison‐pen letter – addressed to then Malaysian Anti‐Corruption Commission chief Shukri Abdull and copied to seven others, including then attorney‐general Tommy Thomas – accused him of engaging in corrupt practices. Sundra claimed that soft copies of the letter were also widely and maliciously circulated to numerous persons, including lawyers, friends and members of his family. He argued that there was an “irresistible inference” that the poison-pen letter was written and published by Leaderonomics and Huganeswaran. He claimed a forensic examination of the soft copies established that the poison-pen letter was authored by Leaderonomics. Sundra also claimed that Huganeswaran, previously an AIAC employee, was privy to confidential information and documents concerning him and AIAC. He said Huganeswaran was employed by Leaderonomics when the poison-pen letter was circulated. In their defence, Huganeswaran and Leaderonomics denied authoring or publishing the poison‐pen letter. Sundra withdrew his claim against Huganeswaran before trial, following the latter’s death. The High Court dismissed Sundra’s suit, ruling that he had failed to prove publication by Leaderonomics. Before the Court of Appeal, the issue was whether Leaderonomics could be held responsible for the letter’s publication. Sundra relied heavily on metadata evidence, and pointed to a Microsoft Word document that identified a user named “Leaderonomics” as its author. He argued that the document must have originated from a device belonging to Leaderonomics, thereby triggering the presumption of publication under Section 114A(3) of the Evidence Act 1950. Choo said the provision does not presume the fact of publication, only the identity of the publisher once certain threshold requirements are met. He said to invoke the presumption, Sundra would first have to prove that the publication originated from a specific device of which Leaderonomics had custody or control at the material time. Choo said although the Microsoft Word document showed it was created by a user named “Leaderonomics”, it did not prove that the publication originated from any specific device. He said there was no evidence linking the impugned publication to a particular laptop supplied by Leaderonomics to the deceased. Lawyer Edward Kuruvilla represented Sundra while HR Dipendra and Tong Joe Jye appeared for Leaderonomics.