The court found that the republication of statements on social media did not constitute defamation, as they reflected personal experiences and were justified.

JUDGMENT

Roz Mawar Rozain JC:

The Session Court's Order

[1] This appeal is against the Session Court's decision on 30 November 2023 that dismissed the Appellant's claim with costs of RM6,000. In essence the Appellant claimed damages from the Respondent for purported defamatory statement republished by the Respondent on Facebook. The relief for a published apology from the Respondent and an injunction against him was therefore dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, a company in the business of used cars since 1999 claimed that the Respondent on 9 August 2020 at 4.54 pm had republished a post by one Edmund Yap on the Respondent's own Facebook account. The name of the Respondent's own Facebook account is that of Jack Ong. The Facebook account setting of the republication on the Respondent's Facebook page was public which meant that everyone at large had access to view and read the said republication. The Appellant contended that the four statements below were defamatory. They were authored by Edmund Yap in Mandarin. The translations into Bahasa Malaysia are as follows:

"~

Saya hanya ingin memberikan peringatan kepada kalian semua, supaya jangan bodoh-bodoh melakukan kesilapan seperti saya.

~

Kedai menjual kereta yang tidak bertanggungjawab.

~

Minta kalian berhati-hati dengan kedai kereta ini.

~

Minta tolong saya kongsikan, jangan jadi mangsa."

[3] In coming to its decision to dismiss the Appellant's claim, the Session Court decided that the impugned statements were not defamatory to the Appellant given their ordinary meaning and/or by way of inference. The Appellant's contention of being defamed was not accepted — in that the impugned statements meant the Appellant was not responsible or honest and cannot be trusted in the business, or that the Appellant is a cheat when it sells the used cars, and that the Appellant had deceived the Respondent.

[4] It was the Appellant's case that the purported defamatory statements referred to it as in the article also stated were the Appellant's name, phone number of the Appellant's director, pictures of the Appellant's premises, its official receipt of 11 July 2020 and a money transfer to the Appellant. Thus, it claimed that it suffered damage to its reputation. All these contentions were rejected by the Session Court.

[5] In his defence, the Respondent pleaded that there were no narration or comments by him when he had republished the original post by Edmund Yap. He claimed that the statements when read in their ordinary meaning did not carry any defamatory elements against the Appellant. The Respondent insisted they were 'luahan hati' or sincere expressions of the writer's personal experience. The writer would be Edmund Yap as the original post was by him. The Respondent adduced evidence that he posted the republication because he had gone through the same bad experience with the Appellant. The Respondent had relied on the defence of justification which the Session Court had accepted. The Session Court ruled that since the Respondent had a similar experience, he was justified to republish Edmund Yap's posting and was not malicious in having done so.

The Background Facts

[6] After a full trial where the Appellant called three witnesses whilst the Respondent called five, based on the evidence, the following is the factual matrix of the case that this Court found:

(a) On 9 August 2020 at 4:34 pm., Edmund Yap published a Facebook post (the original post) in a Facebook group called "Stesen Sembang Anti Penipu" about his personal experience with the Appellant. The original post could be accessed by the public.

(b) On 9 August 2020 at 4:54 pm. which was twenty minutes later, the Respondent republished the original post verbatim without any additional comments. The republication on the Respondent's Facebook page was also accessible to the public.

(c) The Appellant sued the Respondent for defamation, alleging that the republication referred to the Appellant and meant that the Appellant is an irresponsible, dishonest and unreliab