Back
2024 MarsdenLR 926
HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
LIM GUAN ENG – Appellant
Versus
CHANG WEI LU – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-23NCvC-25-10/2019]
The Plaintiff must prove his case on the balance of probabilities in defamation claims, even if the Defendant does not present evidence.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act 1956 – Section 10(1)(b) – Defamation – Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant for defamatory statements published in newspapers – Defendant did not present evidence to refute claims – Court found Plaintiff established case on balance of probabilities – Plaintiff entitled to damages and injunction against further defamatory statements. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Burden of Proof – Plaintiff bears the burden to prove claims even if Defendant does not present evidence – Court must assess evidence presented by Plaintiff to determine if claims are substantiated. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff claimed damages for defamatory statements made by the Defendant, which were published in newspapers. The Defendant did not present any evidence to counter the Plaintiff's claims.
Findings of Court: The court found that the Plaintiff proved his case on the balance of probabilities, establishing that the Defendant's statements were defamatory and that the Plaintiff was entitled to relief.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Plaintiff could pursue action against the Defendant, whether the Plaintiff proved the impugned statements, and whether the statements were defamatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiff could sue independently based on different causes of action, and the Defendant's failure to present evidence did not absolve the Plaintiff from proving his case. The court emphasized the importance of the Plaintiff's burden of proof.
Result: The Defendant was ordered to pay RM60,000 in damages and an injunction was granted against further defamatory statements.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Defendant was entitled to put the Plaintiff to proof of all facts alleged in the statement of claim by the production of the original publications and by the examination of witnesses. It was open for the Defendant to provide the court with his alternative version at the trial.
(See Hassan & Anor v. Wan Ishak & Ors, : Karpal Singh A/L Ram Singh v. DP ; ; [2001] 3 CLJ 871; [2001] 3 AMR 3625).
[2] In this instance, the Defendant opted not to present any evidence and asserted that the Plaintiff had not proven his argument, meaning that the Defendant was not required to refute it.
Issues
[3] The Defendant has raised 3 grounds why the Plaintiff's claims ought to be dismissed.
(a) The Plaintiff barred from pursuing his action against the publisher of the Chinese Daily newspapers who reported the press statement issued and/or made by the Defendant.
(b) The Plaintiff has proved the publication impugned statements; and
(c) That the impugned statements are defamatory.
Arguments
(a) The Plaintiff Barred From Pursuing His Action Against The Publisher Of The Chinese Daily Newspapers Who Reported The Press Statement Issued And/Or Made By The Defendant
[4] Based on the Defendant's statements, according to the SOC, the cause of action was established. The prior lawsuits' basis for action was the statements' dissemination without any independent verification of their veracity. In this instance, the Defendant's own statement served as the basis for the cause of action.
[5] Regarding the question of whether the CLA 1956's Section 10 (1)(b) is relevant? This court concurs with the arguments made by the Defendant's learned counsel that s 10(1)(b) 1956 can be applied to the joint tortfeasor or otherwise. It does not imply that it is limited to tortfeasor.
Section 10 (1) CLA 1956:
"(a) Judgment recovered against any tortfeasor liable in respect of that damage shall not be a bar to an action against any other person who would, if sued, have been liable as a joint tortfeasor in respect of the same damage;
(b) if more than one action is brought in respect of that damage by or on behalf of the person by whom it was suffered, or for the benefit of the estate, or of the wife, husband, parent or child, of that person, against tortfeasors liable in respect of the damage (whether as joint tortfeasors or otherwise) the sums recoverable under the judgments given in those actions byway of damages shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount of the damages awarded by the judgment first given; and in any of those actions, other than that in which judgment is first given, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to costs unless the court is of opinion that there was reasonable ground for bringing the action;
[6] However, based on the wording of the Section, this court determines that the Defendant may still rely on it, but only with regard to the contribution of damages, and not with regard to the issue of preventing the Plaintiff from bringing an independent cause of action against the Defendant.
[7] The act of reporting the statements is different from the act of issuing the statement by the author himself. In any event, if they are joint tortfeasors, it is an established principle that if two or more /several are sued, settlement with one torteressor doesn't not release the other.
[8] In Malaysia Discounts Bhd & Ors v. Pesaka Astana (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors, ), held that:
"It is an established legal principle that if two or more several tortfeasors are sued, settlement with one tortfeaser does not release the others. It would immediately become clear that the torts committed by the second and third defendants were several in nature: they were separate torts committed independently by each of them at different points of time, and not jointly. In other words, the plaintiffs did not allege collusion or conspiracy on the part of the second and third Defendants."
[9] The meaning of tortfeasor has been defined in the case of Wah Tat Bank Ltd &
