Criticising the committee. Is it defamation?

Disagreements over condominium management can quickly become personal. Residents question how money is handled, committee members exchange sharp remarks, and a petition calls for changes. But does naming the chairperson or secretary mean that they can successfully sue for defamation?

In Romanus Feby Rocky & Anor v Kong Soo Kim & Ors [2026] CLJU 2898, the High Court at Shah Alam dismissed defamation and conspiracy claims arising from a condominium petition and WhatsApp messages. The judgment, delivered on 5 August 2026, illustrates why the words used, their context and the nature of the criticism matter.

What led to the defamation suit?

The dispute concerned South View Condominium at One Ampang Avenue. The plaintiffs were the chairperson and secretary of its management committee.

Initially, every cheque required the treasurer’s signature, together with the signature of either the chairperson or secretary. The treasurer also verified payment vouchers.

The committee later changed these arrangements. Under the revised procedure, cheques could be processed without the treasurer’s signature if she did not sign within the stipulated period. Verification of payment vouchers was transferred to the chairperson.

Following these changes, 48 owners and residents signed a petition questioning the committee’s financial checks and balances. They asked for the treasurer’s role to be restored and indicated that they would otherwise seek a general meeting to consider a vote of no confidence.

The chairperson and secretary brought defamation claims over the petition and thirteen WhatsApp messages. They alleged that the statements portrayed them as corrupt, dishonest and guilty of misconduct.

Why did the defamation claims fail?

The court distinguished criticism of how a committee manages a development from an attack on an individual’s personal reputation.

Although the petition named the chairperson and secretary, it addressed their roles in changing the committee’s financial procedures. Read as a whole, it questioned the management arrangements rather than accusing them of personal wrongdoing. The court therefore held that they could not maintain a personal defamation action over that petition.

The court also found that the petition did not carry the defamatory meanings alleged. Strong objections to financial controls did not, in this context, amount to accusations of corruption, fraud or theft.

On circulation of the petition, the court considered the particular governance setting, including communications with management personnel, the Commissioner of Buildings and parcel owners. It found that publication to third parties had not been established in the legal sense required for that claim.

Did the WhatsApp messages amount to defamation?

The court assessed the WhatsApp messages separately. Unlike the petition, the messages satisfied the requirements of referring to the plaintiffs and being communicated to other people.

However, the defamation claim still failed.

The exchanges concerned matters such as maintenance, noise, payment procedures and cheque signatories. Some messages were rude and insulting. Nevertheless, read in their conversational context, the court found that they did not convey the accusations of dishonesty, corruption or serious misconduct alleged by the plaintiffs.

The conspiracy claim also failed. Working together to prepare a petition and collect signatures did not, without more, prove an unlawful agreement to injure the chairperson and secretary.

What should owners and committee members take note of?

For owners, a complaint is more useful when it identifies the decision being challenged, the supporting records and the change being requested. For example, refer to the meeting minutes and explain why a revised payment procedure causes concern. Avoid turning a disagreement about financial controls into an unsupported accusation that someone has stolen money.

For committee members, distinguish a request for accountability from an attack on personal integrity. Where residents question cheque signatories or payment approvals, explain the procedure, the reasons for the change and the safeguards in place. A clear written response addresses the concern that prompted the complaint.

Before pursuing a defamation claim, retain the complete conversation, attachments and details of who received it. A cropped screenshot may leave out the context that determines what the statement actually means. Identify the precise allegation before issuing a demand or commencing proceedings. Does it concern the individual personally or the committee’s management decisions?

This decision does not give residents unrestricted protection for statements made in petitions or private WhatsApp groups. Nor does it mean that committee members can never sue. It demonstrates that being named, criticised or offended does not, by itself, establish defamation. The actual words and their context remain decisive.

Share this article