Back
2014 MarsdenLR 1947
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM – Appellant
Versus
WAN MUHAMMAD AZRI WAN DERIS – Respondent
[Suit No: 23NCVC-37-03-2013]
The court established that defamatory statements published about the plaintiff were malicious and unfounded, affirming the importance of reputation and accountability in defamation cases.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Law - Essential elements in defamation action: the statements must be defamatory, refer to the plaintiff, and must be published (Paras 15, 26) - The statements contained in articles from defendant's website were found to be defamatory and published with malice (Paras 20, 42) - Court confirmed that allegations made against the plaintiff were calculated to expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt (Paras 21, 24, 25) - Plaintiff entitled to compensation due to severe defamatory nature of statements (Paras 83, 92).
(B) Defence of Justification - The defendant failed to prove the truth behind the defamation claims (Para 81).
(C) Defence of Qualified Privilege - Court found defendant could not establish necessary elements for this defence (Paras 66, 70).
(D) Defence of Fair Comment - Court determined the defendant did not prove that comments were fair or in public interest (Paras 76, 74). (E) Damages - Awarded RM800,000 in general and exemplary damages (Paras 92, 93).
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a prominent political figure, alleges defamation against him through statements published on the defendant's blog which were found to be malicious and defamatory, aimed at undermining his public standing.
Findings of Court:
Court concluded defendant was the publisher of defamatory statements leading to a severe injury of reputation for the plaintiff.
Issues: The key issues addressed include whether defendant published defamatory statements, whether these statements refer to the plaintiff, and the validity of the defendant's defenses.
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that the statements made were unequivocally defamatory, with the defendant failing to prove any defenses such as justification or fair comment.
Result: Defendant ordered to pay RM800,000 in damages and RM50,000 in costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of damages to be awarded (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 2. final ruling on damages and orders (Para 90 , 91) |
[83] The award of damages is at the discretion of the court. Damages should be fair and adequate.
[84] In the case of Chin Choon v. Chua Jui Meng, [2005] 3 MLJ 494 where His Lordship Justice Sri Ram JCA had made reference to the book 'Defamation Law, Procedure and Practice' by Price & Doudu (3rd edn), p 208 where the learned authors set out several factors to be taken into account in determining the quantum of damages for defamation cases as follows:
i. the gravity of the allegation;
ii. the size and influence of the circulation;
iii. the effect of the publication;
iv. the extent and nature of the claimant's reputation;
v. the behavior of the defendant;
vi. the behavior of the claimant.
[85] It is not disputed; the plaintiff is a famous and leading politician at national and international level. He is currently an Opposition Leader. He was a former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
[86] It is not disputed that the defamatory statements were published on the internet and sensationalised and widely circulated and can be accessed throughout Malaysia and the world.
[87] The gravity of the defamatory statements is very serious. The allegations were highly libelous to the plaintiff. Any award to be awarded must be sufficient to vindicate the gravity of the allegations against the plaintiff. The defamatory statements that were published by the defendant were very obnoxious and obscene. The sting of the defamatory statements will tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff.
[88] Furthermore, it was accessible and circulated throughout the world. The defendant has abused the usage of the internet.
[89] In Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 18th edn, the learned author says about the exemplary damages:
"... exemplary or punitive damages which are awarded to teach the defendant that "tort does not pay" and to deter him and others from similar conduct in the future".
[90] The defamation statements which are extreme, vicious and vulgar nature of the language used against the plaintiff, failure to apologise, and the defendant's conduct in repeating the allegations in a vicious manner in subsequent blog entries in response to the letter of demand, allows this court to grant the exemplary damages to the plaintiff.
[91] Perhaps it would be appropriate for this court to examine the pattern of damages awarded by the court in order to ascertain a fair and suitable damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. In Chin Choon v. Chua Jui Meng, [2005] 3 MLJ 494 where the defamation case involved a Cabinet Minister, the court of Appeal awarded the damages of RM200,000. In Abduk Razak bin Mohd Noor v. Wan Muhammad Azri bin Wan Deris Kuala Lumpur High court, Writ Summon No: 23NCVC-17-01-2012 (unreported) where the court awarded RM500,000.00 as general and exemplary damages for a defamation claim.
