Back
2024 MarsdenLR 162
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
REEZAL JAI RIHAN ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
DANESH SIVADAS & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCvC-342-08/2022]
Complaints made in good faith to a professional authority do not constitute defamation, provided they are relevant and properly directed.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Section 8 - The Plaintiff, a Unit Manager and insurance agency owner, claimed defamation and civil fraud against the Defendants for complaints made to AIA. The Court found the complaints were legitimate and not defamatory, emphasizing the need for a bona fide complaint process. (Paras [64], [77], [98])
(B) The court ruled that the Defendants' complaints did not lower the Plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, as they were directed to AIA and investigated. (Paras [78], [90])
(C) The Plaintiff's claims of fraud and forgery were dismissed due to lack of evidence and the existence of a valid non-disclosure agreement. (Paras [97], [100])
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants made defamatory statements to AIA, leading to reputational damage and financial loss. The Defendants claimed their complaints were valid and based on the Plaintiff's unprofessional conduct.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Defendants' complaints were within their rights and not defamatory.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the Defendants were defamatory and if the Plaintiff proved his claims of fraud and forgery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bona fide complaints made to a professional authority are protected and do not constitute defamation.
Result: Plaintiff's suit dismissed.
| Date | Event Description | Reference(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Not specified | The Court found that the complaints made by the Defendants to AIA were bona fide and not defamatory. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court concluded that the complaints did not lower the Plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court determined that the statements made by the Defendants did not contain words that tend to lower the Plaintiff’s reputation. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court found that the complaints were not published to third parties. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of defamation due to lack of proof of publication or defamatory imputations. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court held that the complaints were made in good faith and without malice, as part of a proper complaint process. | (!) (!) |
| Not specified | The Court dismissed the claims of civil fraud and forgery due to insufficient evidence. | (!) |
| Not specified | The Court concluded that the statements and complaints did not damage the Plaintiff’s reputation. | (!) (!) |
| Not specified | The Court accepted the Defendants' justification and responsible conduct in making complaints and conducting investigations. | (!) (!) |
Note: Specific dates are not provided in the referenced materials.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff is a Unit Manager in AIA Berhad ("AIA") and operates his own insurance agency, Life Associates Sdn Bhd.
[2] The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are for two causes of actions:
(a) Claims for defamatory statements made by the Defendants against the Plaintiff; and
(b) Claims for civil fraud and/or forgery of documents by the Defendants in order to damage the Plaintiff's reputation as an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry.
[3] The Plaintiff seeks for the following reliefs and/or remedies:
With respect to the defamatory statements:
(a) declaration that the Defendants had jointly and/or individually committed acts of defamation against the Plaintiff.
(b) declaration of apology by way of oral and/or written apology to be issued by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually towards the Plaintiff, AIA, Life Associates and Life Associates' agents for all the defamatory statements made against the Plaintiffs.
(c) payment of sums RM 1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered by the Plaintiff as result of the first defamatory statements and the loss of reputation suffered by the Plaintiff.
(d) payment of sums RM1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered by the Plaintiff as result of the second defamatory statements and the loss of reputation suffered by the Plaintiff.
(e) exemplary damages as deemed fit by this Court for the Defendants' actions in respect of the 2 defamatory statements.
(f) general damages to be assessed by this Court for the losses and distress suffered by the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendants' defamatory statements against the Plaintiff.
(g) interests and costs.
With respect to the Fraud and/or Forgery:
(a) declaration that the Letter of Intent is null and void by reason of the Defendants fraud and/or forgery committed and therefore unenforceable against the Plaintiff.
(b) payment of sums RM1,000,000.00 by the Defendants either jointly and/or individually to the Plaintiff as damages suffered as result of the Defendants' act of fraud and/or forgery.
(c) general damages to be assessed by this Court by reason of the Defendants act of fraud and/or forgery against the Plaintiff.
(d) interests and costs.
Who Is The Plaintiff?
[4] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about himself and his background as follows, among others:
• the Plaintiff is a Malaysian individual.
• the Plaintiff is a Unit Manager in AIA Berhad ("AIA") and operates his own insurance agency, Life Associates Sdn Bhd (Company No.: 1340731-H) ("Life Associates") a company incorporated in Malaysia with registered address at Suite 8.02, Menara AIA, Intan Millennium Square, Jalan Batai 4, 41300 Klang, Selangor. Life Associates is an insurance agency with forty (40) agents.
• the Plaintiff's Achievements and Accolades
(a) at all times, the Plaintiff is an upstanding and successful individual in the insurance industry.
(b) the Plaintiff as an individual has been part of AIA Bhd for 5 years and had been promoted to an Assistant Unit Manager on 2018 and was promoted to Unit Manager on 2019.
(c) the Plaintiff is also the managing director of Life Associates (an insurance agency).
(d) the Plaintiff as part of Life Associates had achieved the following accolades awarded by AIA throughout the years from 2019 to 2022, ie Million Dollar Round Table qualifier for year 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022; President Club Qualifier; Sydney MDRT Qualifier; Star Club Qualifier; Corporate Solutions Master; Corporate Solutions Platinum Advisor; Corporate Solutions Champion Club Qualifier; Summit Qualifier; and Million Dollar Agency for year 2019, 2020 and 2021, consecutively.
Who Are The Defendants?
[5] In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff has stated about the Defendants as follows:
The First Defendant (D1):
• D1 is a Malaysian individual and residing at Kota Kemuning, 40460 Shah
