Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1681
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
DATO SUKI MEE – Appellant
Versus
TOI SIN FATT & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: AA-22NCVC-68-08/2019]
Defamatory statements can be established if they lower the plaintiff's reputation, refer to them, and are published. The defences of justification and absolute privilege have specific requirements and limitations.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 – Burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the words are defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and were published (Paras 30, 31).
(B)
Defamatory statements must be viewed as a whole, including the context in which they were made (Paras 12, 13).
(C)
Defence of justification requires the defendant to prove truth and cannot be simply based on honest belief (Paras 21-25).
(D)
Absolute privilege is not applicable for subsequent publication of police reports to third parties (Paras 30, 31).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a businessman and town planner, alleged defamation after the defendants disseminated statements claiming he directed employees to unlawfully harvest palm fruit.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff established the elements of defamation, including defamatory meaning, reference to him, and publication.
Issues
: The court addressed whether the impugned statements were defamatory and the validity of the defendants’ defences.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled that the statements were defamatory based on their objective meaning and the context; the defendants failed to prove their defence of justification.
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants with damages awarded.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendants for an alleged defamatory statement issued by the latter which was then disseminated to 70 individuals who were the indigenous participants in the 'Rancangan Penyusunan Semula Tapak Pertanian Berkelompok Orang Asli' at Kg Chinggung, Behrang Ulu, Mukim Hulu Bernam Timur, Daerah Batang Padang, Perak
Background Facts
[2] The Plaintiff is a businessman and a professional and is practicing as Town Planner. The Plaintiff holds the following positions:
a) Timbalan Presiden Persatuan Siswazah Orang Asli Malaysia;
b) Naib-Presiden Persatuan Pembangunan Orang Asli Malaysia;
c) Pengerusi Persatuan Orang Asli Perak;
d) Pengeruse Koperasi Orang Asli Perak;
e) Pengerusi Yayasan Orang Asli Perak; and
f) Ahli Majlis Penasihat Orang Asli Malaysia.
a) Digi Planners;
b) Digi Planners Consultancy;
c) Tradisi Anggun Sdn Bhd;
d) Restu Ternama Sdn Bhd; and
e) Gema Consult Sdn Bhd.
[4] The Plaintiff was also a shareholder and a director in the following companies together with the 1st Defendant before his dismissal by the 1st Defendant:
a) Fiscal Arena Sdn Bhd (the 2nd Defendant);
b) Far Origin Sdn Bhd;
c) Goodluck Marketing Sdn Bhd;
d) Arena Ria Sdn Bhd; and
e) ZKS Serangkai Sdn Bhd
[5] The 2nd Defendant was a company incorporated under Companies Act 1965 with registered address at No 18, Tingkat 1, Jalan Dass, 30300 Ipoh, Perak. The 2nd Defendant had been wound up through the Court of Appeal Judgment dated 22 May 2020 under Civil Appeal No A-02(NCC)(A)- 961-05/2019.
[6] The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant both own 40% of the shares in the 2nd Defendant, whilst another one known as Arif bin Mat Ariffin holds another 20% of the shares. However, on 15 June 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed as a director of the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff had proceeded to file for the 1st Winding Up Petition against the 2nd Defendant in 2018 which was dismissed in 2019.
[7] After the 1st Winding Up Petition was dismissed in 2019, the 1st and/or the 2nd Defendant alleged that they were informed by the 3rd Defendant that he had witnessed the Plaintiff's employee(s) harvesting the palm fruit belonging to the 2nd Defendant without the 2nd Defendant's authorisation. The 3rd Defendant had on 10 May 2019 filed a police report regarding the said incident in Behrang Report No 891/2019 stating, inter alia, as follows:
"...SAYA TERNAMPAK PEKERJA DATUK SUKIMI MEMOTONG BUAH DIKAWASAN LADANG SAWIT YANG SAYA JAGA. APABILA SAYA BERTANYA KEPADA PEKERJA MEREKA MENYATAKAN DATUK SUKIMI YANG MENYURUH KAMI POTONG BUAH KELAPA SAWIT TERSEBUT..."
("The 1st Impugned Statement")
[8] 5 days later, the 1st Defendant had filed a police report Behrang Report No: 923/19 stating as follows:
"PADA 10 May 2019, SAYA TELAH DIMAKLUMKAN OLEH PEKERJA FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD KAMAL A/L TAMAT (NO K/P: 750415-08-6241) BAHAWA BELIAU TERNAMPAK PEKERJA DATO SUKI MEE (NO K/P: 641129-08-5325), BEKAS PENGARAH FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD TELAH MENUAI BUAH KELAPA SAWIT DI KAWASAN LADANG KELAPA SAWIT KEPUNYAAN FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD TANPA KEBENARAN FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD PEKERJA DATO' SUKI MEE JUGA MEMAKLUMKAN PEKERJA KAMI BAHAWA MEREKA TELAH DIARAHKAN DATO' SUKI MEE UNTUK BERBUAT DEMIKIAN. TINDAKAN- TINDAKAN TERSEBUT SEUMPAMANYA MENCURI HARTA KEPUNYAAN FICSAL ARENA SDN BHD TAMBAHAN LAGI PEKERJA DATO' SUKI MEE JUGA MELARANG PEKERJA FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD UNTUK MENUAI BUAH KELAPA SAWIT ATAS LADANG KEPUNYAAN FISCAL ARENA SDN BHD SETELAH SAYA MENGETAHUI PERKARA TERSEBUT, SAYA DENGAN SERTA MERTA MENGARAHKAN KAMAL A/L TAMAT (NO KP: 750415-08-6241) UNTUK MEMBUAT LAPORAN POLIS. No REPOT BELIAU ADALAH BEHRANG/00691/19. TUJUAN SAYA MEMBUAT LAPORAN POLIS INI ADALAH UNTUK PIHAK POLIS DIRAJA MALAYSIA UNTUK MENYIASAT PERKARA TERSEBUT DAN MENGAMBIL TINDAKAN YANG SEWAJARNYA TERHADAP DATO' SUKI MEE BESERTA DENGAN PEKERJA BELIAU MEMANDANGKAN TINDAKAN MEREKA TELAH MENGANCAM HARTA BENDA KEPUNYAAN FISCAL ARENA SDN.BHD. LAPORAN INI JUGA UNTUK MELINDUNGI KEPENTINGAN SYARIKAT DAN UNT
