SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1997

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
MAHDZIR MD ISA – Appellant
Versus
MOHD RIDHUAN TEE ABDULLAH – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-23NCvC-19-03/2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud,Marwan Abdullah,Syafiqah Abd Razak,Umi Kelathun Abd Ghani,Shakirah Ahmad Sharifuddin ,Respondent Advocate: Ashmadi Othman,Buhsro Mohamad Anuar,Ahmed Burhan Tee Abdullah

A registered society lacks the requisite legal personality to maintain a defamation claim, as it cannot possess a reputation under the law to protect.

Headnote:(A) Societies Act 1966 - Section 9(c) - Defamation Act 1957 - Sections 8 and 9 - The Plaintiff, a registered society, claimed defamation against the Defendant for three postings published on social media, alleging reputational harm. Court found the Plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue for defamation due to its status as a society, which does not possess a reputation capable of sustaining such an action. The court ruled that the principles established in Lim Lip Eng apply equally to all societies under the Act. (Paras 34, 68, 170)

(B) Defamation - Elements and Defenses - Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for defamation and that the Defendant's defenses of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege were not substantiated. The court emphasized that the Defendant's comments were not based on verified facts and thus did not qualify for defenses. (Paras 116, 128, 142)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a registered society, alleged defamation against the Defendant based on three articles published on social media, claiming reputational damage. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi to sue and that the statements were not defamatory. (Paras 1, 24, 28)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff, being a society, lacked the legal standing to maintain a defamation suit, as it does not possess a reputation that the law seeks to protect. The claim was dismissed on this basis. (Paras 170, 172)

Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiff had locus standi to sue for defamation and whether the statements published by the Defendant were defamatory in nature. (Paras 4, 68)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a society registered under the Societies Act 1966 does not have the requisite reputation to sustain a defamation claim, as established in Lim Lip Eng v. Ong Ka Chuan. The decision emphasized the need for a society to possess a legal personality to maintain such actions. (Paras 60, 68)

Result: Claim dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy JC:

Introduction

[1] This case brings before the Court an unfortunate dispute between two influential voices in the realm of Islamic preaching. On the one hand is a prominent organization, dedicated to the propagation of Islamic values. On the other, a renowned preacher, equally committed to the advancement of the faith. One would have expected them to work together for the greater good of the ummah. Instead, the former now stands as the Plaintiff, accusing the latter of defamation, turning what should have been a shared mission into an acrimonious legal contest.

[2] It is against this backdrop that this Court is now called upon to untangle the legal complexities of this dispute and adjudicate on the defamation claim before it.

The Pertinent Issues

[3] The twelve questions as agreed by the parties as the Issues to be Tried are enumerated in encl 67. The twelve questions are as follows:

1. Sama ada suatu pertubuhan yang berdaftar di bawah Akta Pertubuhan 1966 (Disemak-2021) mempunyai locus standi untuk membawa dan/atau mengekalkan suatu kausa tindakan fitnah terhadap individu-individu dan/atau pengkritik- pengkritiknya?

2. Sama ada pengaplikasian s 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966 (Disemak-2021) membezakan di antara pertubuhan dan parti politik?

3. Sama ada suatu pertubuhan yang berdaftar di bawah Akta Pertubuhan 1966 (Disemak-2021), yang tidak boleh menyaman atau disaman atas namanya sendiri, mempunyai reputasi yang disyaratkan yang undang-undang fitnah berniat untuk lindungi?

4. Sama ada Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga Defendan tersebut, meskipun tanpa rujukan khusus terhadap ahli-ahli Plaintif, adalah merujuk kepada Plaintif?

5. Sekiranya Plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk membawa kausa tindakan fitnah, dan merujuk kepada Plaintif, sama ada kandungan Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut sama ada diambil daripada keseluruhan konteks adalah merupakan kenyataan yang tidak benar dan/atau bersifat fitnah dan/atau sama ada undang-undang membenarkan ianya dibaca secara terpisah dan berasingan?

6. Sekiranya Plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk membawa kausa tindakan fitnah, dan merujuk kepada Plaintif, sama ada kandungan Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut bertujuan untuk menjatuhkan imej dan/atau reputasi Plaintif dan/atau telah mendedahkan Plaintif kepada kebencian dan/atau cemuhan dan/atau penghinaan dalam minda orang yang munasabah?

7. Sekiranya Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut adalah merujuk kepada Plaintif dan bersifat fitnah, sama ada ketiga- tiga Penulisan tersebut adalah merupakan komen berpatutan (fair comment)?

8. Sekiranya Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut adalah merujuk kepada Plaintif dan bersifat fitnah, sama ada ketiga- tiga Penulisan tersebut adalah dilindungi oleh kepentingan bersyarat?

9. Sekiranya Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut adalah merujuk kepada Plaintif dan bersifat fitnah, sama ada Defendan boleh bergantung kepada pembelaan justifikasi?

10. Sama ada tindakan Plaintif terhadap Defendan adalah merupakan suatu penganiayaan, pendakwaan terpilih dan dengan niat jahat (selective and malicious prosecution), dan tidak wajar untuk menyekat hak bersuara dan/atau melontarkan pendapat mahupun kritikan oleh Defendan?

11. Sama ada Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Ketiga tersebut telah diterbitkan oleh Defendan terhadap Plaintif dengan niat jahat (malice)?

12. Sama ada Plaintif ada mengalami kerugian dan wajar untuk mendapatkan remedi-remedi yang dipohon termasuklah ganti rugi am dan/atau ganti rugi teruk dan/atau ganti rugi teladan akibat daripada Penulisan Pertama tersebut dan/atau Penulisan Kedua tersebut dan/a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top