Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1286
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
VEERASINGAM RATNAM & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
NARINDAR SINGH AVTAR SINGH CHHABRA – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-23CY-14-07/2020]
Statements made by the defendant were deemed defamatory against the plaintiffs, leading to an award of damages for injury to reputation.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Law – Elements of Defamation – Three requisite elements must be established: statements are defamatory, refer to the plaintiffs, and were published to third parties – Plaintiffs successfully proved that impugned statements lowered their reputation according to societal standards, attributing serious misconduct to them – D's defence of justification and fair comment failed as no substantial truth was shown – Court awarded damages of RM30,000 to 1st Plaintiff and RM20,000 to 2nd Plaintiff. (Paras 1, 26, 49, 103)
Introduction
[1] The 1st Plaintiff ("P1") is a retiree who previously worked at Telekom Malaysia. The 2nd Plaintiff ("P2") is an advocate and solicitor. P1 is the father-in-law of P2. P1 and P2 are collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs".
[2] The Defendant ("D") is the brother-in-law of P1. The wife of P1 ("P1's Wife") is the sister of D.
[3] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant ("D") is for defamation. After a full trial, I allowed the Plaintiffs' claim. These are the grounds of my judgment.
Plaintiffs' Case
[4] The Plaintiffs aver that the following statements were made by D against them and are defamatory (collectively the "Impugned Statements").
[5] Firstly, on 27 June 2020 through WhatsApp message from D's mobile phone to a WhatsApp chat group ("Sibling WhatsApp Group") named 'Siblings and family' ("Impugned Statement 1"):
"For my comments on veera is First to destruction of chhabra. Kidnap sister force her to elope. Torture mother for years insulted grandpa during his siblings wedding. Insulted our mantra on forum media. Claim he has much respect for our mother. Comes and visit auntie rishi with personal agenda. Making business through his son in law with our expenses".
[6] Secondly, on 10 July 2020, D posted a comment on Facebook to a picture posted by a Facebook user named 'Sunita Chhabra' ("Sunita") and tagged P1 ("Impugned Statement 2"):
"Veerasingam Ratnam you are a faker";
"Veerasingam Ratnam For my comments on veera is First to destruction of chhabra. Kidnap sister force her to elope. Torture mother for years insulted grandpa during his siblings wedding. Insulted our mantra on forum media. Claim he has much respect for our mother. Comes and visit auntie rishi with personal agenda. Making business through his son in law with our expenses".
[7] Sunita is the cousin of P1's Wife. Save for the addition of the first line and the full name of P1 in the second line, Impugned Statement 2 repeats Impugned Statement 1.
[8] Thirdly, on 11 July 2020 through WhatsApp message from D's mobile phone to P1's Wife at her mobile phone ("Impugned Statement 3"):
"This is breaking news
Very professional miners.
You can buy judges. Great!!!!
https://www.malaymail. com/s/830961/court-overturns-convictions-of-duo-jailed- for-faking-michael-soosais-death".
[9] Fourthly, on 12 July 2020, D posted a comment on Facebook to a picture posted in Sunita's Facebook and tagged P1 ("Impugned Statement 4"):
"Chuwa Chuwi Kawal Veera and Vicki are having a conspiracy to manipulate us They stole her rights. These two people hiding not showing us her will. Saying no will. We have her will written. What do you think of them. I'm asking all our families.
https:www.malaymail.com/s/830961/court-overturns-conviction-of-duo-jailed- for-faking-michael-soosais-death. Our parents never teach us to cheat likeversa and Jennifer Mohan Singh. Both Rob auntie rishi Will of helping us to cheat and become millionaire. MALAYMAIL.COM court overturns conviction of duo jail.
Veerasingam Ratnam For my comments on veera is First to destruction of chhabra. Kidnap sister force her to elope. Torture mother for years insulted grandpa during his siblings wedding. Insulted our mantra on forum media. Claim he has much respect for our mother. Comes and visit auntie rishi with personal agenda. Making business through his son in law with our expenses. That's Him. Opportunists".
[10] D alleges that Impugned Statement 4 was posted on another relative's Facebook (ie D's brother-in-law), not Sunita's Facebook. However, this point was not pleaded by D. Nor was it proven in court.
[11] Again, Impugned Statement 1 is repeated in the last paragraph of Impugned Statement 4, with two additional sentences at the end. P2 testified that the names mentioned in the first line refer to:- (i) his client Jetindar Mohan Singh a/l Avtar Singh, who is the custodian of the Estate, (ii) Pi, (iii) P1's Wife and (iv) P2. These being the names by which they are known in the family circle.
[12] Im
