Back
2025 MarsdenLR 740
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
NOOR HAYATI MAT, J
RAGAVAN RAJOO – Appellant
Versus
IGNATIAN BENEDICT DURAISINGHAM – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-23CY-7-07/2022]
A registered society can be sued for defamation in the name of its office bearer, distinguishing it from political parties which lack the requisite reputation to maintain such actions.
Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Section 9(c) - Defamation - Legal entity status of societies - Court determined that a society, upon registration, gains legal recognition and can be sued in the name of its office bearer - The case of Lim Lip Eng clarified that a political party lacks the requisite reputation to sue for defamation, but this does not extend to societies - The Defendant's application was answered affirmatively, allowing the matter to proceed to trial. (Paras 1, 3, 56)
(B) Preliminary Issues - The court may determine preliminary questions that could render a trial unnecessary - The Defendant's application was based on the legal standing of the society to be sued for defamation, which was affirmed. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a member of a registered society, sued the Defendant for defamation regarding an article published by the society. The Defendant contended that the society could not be sued for defamation, leading to the preliminary determination of the legal questions. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the society is a legal entity and can be sued in the name of its office bearer, thus allowing the defamation claim to proceed. (Paras 56)
Issues: The main issues included whether a society can be sued for defamation and the implications of the Lim Lip Eng case on this matter. (Paras 1, 2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles established in Lim Lip Eng do not apply to societies, which can be sued through their office bearers, affirming the legal entity status of registered societies. (Paras 56)
Result: Defendant's application answered affirmatively; matter to proceed to trial.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Ragavan Rajoo vs Ignatian Benedict Duraisingham [2025 MarsdenLR 545]:
Case Overview and Parties * The case involves an appeal regarding a preliminary issue in a defamation suit where the Plaintiff sued the Defendant (a registered society) through its office bearer. (!) (!) (!) * The Defendant filed an application for a question of law to be determined preliminarily under Order 33 r 5 and/or Order 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, arguing that the society could not be sued for defamation. (!) (!) (!) * The specific question posed was whether the Plaintiff could commence and sustain an action for defamation against the Defendant, a society, pursuant to the Societies Act 1966. (!)
Legal Principles and Precedents * The court distinguished between political parties and registered societies regarding their ability to be sued or sue for defamation. (!) (!) (!) * The Federal Court case Lim Lip Eng v. Ong Ka Chuan held that a political party lacks the requisite reputation to maintain a suit for defamation and therefore has no locus standi. (!) (!) (!) (!) * However, the court clarified that the principle in Lim Lip Eng does not extend to registered societies. (!) (!) (!) * The court relied on the earlier Federal Court decision Lee Tak Suan & Anor v. Tunku Dato Seri Shahabudin & Ors, which established that a society, upon registration under the Societies Act 1966, gains legal recognition and is a legal entity. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 explicitly provides that a society may sue or be sued in the name of its registered public officer or office bearer. (!) (!) (!) * The court noted that while a society cannot sue or be sued in its own collective name, it is not immune from being sued in the name of its office bearers. (!) (!) (!)
Court's Findings and Decision * The court answered the Defendant's preliminary question in the affirmative, ruling that the society is a legal entity and
Introduction
[1] Defendant filed this application for a question of law to be determined on preliminary issue by this Court under O 33 r 5 and/or under O 14A of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) via encl 41. The initial question posed is:
"Can the Plaintiff commence and sustain an action on a cause of action in defamation against the Defendant, which is a society pursuant to the provisions of the Societies Act 1966."
[2] In the midst of hearing both parties, I have proposed revised questions as follows:
1. Whether the Defendant can be sued for defamation in the light of Lim Lip Eng's case?
2. Whether the Federal Court in Lim Lip Eng, referring to the statement in para 64 that "as a matter of policy, the focus or our judgment must be confined to the question of law posed" means that the judgment is limited only to whether a political party or society can sue for defamation?
3. Whether a society is a legal entity?
[3] On 13 September 2024, having heard both parties and submissions filed, I answered the questions in the affirmative and gave my brief grounds pronounced as follows:
Decision:
I have considered in detail the issue raised by the Defendant and, after careful consideration of the submissions on the impact and applicability of the Lim Lip Eng case, I have come to the following conclusion:
1. The principle enunciated in the case of Lee Tak Suan (FC) was that a society, upon its registration under a statute (the Societies Act), gains legal recognition of its existence; thus, Kelab PJ is a legal entity. It is undisputed that S.9(c) provides that a society can be sued in the name of its office bearer.
2. Lim Lip Eng's case specifically answered the question of whether a political party can maintain a suit for defamation. FC discussed at length what amounts to defamation, the locus standi of the Respondent (Ong Ka Chuan) to sue for damages for defamation, the importance of having a requisite reputation, and, along the way, cited and referred to authorities on companies or societies whether having separate legal entities to sue or be sued in its own name. This was when Gatley on Liber and Slander was referred to, and later, discussions were made into the English cases that were relevant to the question posed. The final findings of the FC were based on the lack of locus standi and the Respondent's failure to demonstrate that it has a reputation which the law ought to protect. To be specific, the FC states at the conclusion of its judgment that the Respondent in the instant case (public officer of MCA), "being a political party, cannot maintain a suit for defamation" thus answering the question posed in the negative.
3. The case of Lee Tak Suan was not referred to by the FC in Lim Lip Eng. Therefore, the principle mentioned earlier is still good law.
4. In the present case, the Defendant is not bringing an action for defamation but only defending themselves from the suit brought by Plaintiff. The specific reasons stated in Lim Lip Eng do not apply to the present case, and I am more inclined to follow Lee Tak Suan's reasoning, which is more similar to this case.
Based on the brief reasons above, my answer to the original question would be in the affirmative and also to all the re-formulated questions, all in the affirmative.
Therefore, Defendant's application in encl 41 is answered accordingly, and I will order the cost of this application to be paid to Plaintiff. Cost of RM8000 to the Plf subject to allocator.
The matter will proceed to trial.
[4] The Defendant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal, and I have set out my reasons below.
The Undisputed Facts
[5] Plaintiff is a member of Kelab PJ, a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 (SA), an unincorporated association. The Defendant is being sued as a club, naming its Honorary Secretary, Ignatian Benedict Duraisingham, as the office bearer.
[6] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant is for defamation with respect to an article allegedly published in bulletins
