SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 MarsdenLR 1209

HIGH COURT MALAYA GEORGETOWN
LIM GUAN ENG – Appellant
Versus
RAZMAN ZAKARIA – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: PA-23NCVC-5-01-2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Mureli Navaratnam,Vijaya Navaratnam,Felix Lim Xian Feng ,Respondent Advocate: Mohd Harris Mohan Abdullah,Syahidah Hanum Mohd Ghazali,Ahmad Azhar Shahrir

A plaintiff in defamation must prove publication, reference, and defamatory meaning, while the burden of proof remains until established.

Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 – Libel – Elements of defamation – The plaintiff, the Chief Minister of Penang, successfully claimed damages against the defendant for a defamatory Facebook post implying he supported a ban on headscarves – The court reaffirmed that the defamatory meaning is assessed in light of ordinary and natural meaning – The plaintiff's burden of proof on the elements of defamation was fulfilled, leading to a judgment against the defendant – Damages awarded included RM150,000 as general damages, RM100,000 for aggravated and exemplary damages, and orders for an apology. (Paras 1, 11, 37, 45)

(B) Burden of Proof in Defamation – The court stated that in a defamation case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate the defamatory nature of the words, reference to the plaintiff, and publication, which was established in this case. The defendant's failure to present evidence did not absolve the plaintiff from proving these elements. (Paras 18, 22, 30)

Facts of the case: The plaintiff accused the defendant of posting defamatory statements about him on Facebook, affecting his reputation and integrity as a politician, and demanding an apology and damages. (Paras 1, 11)

Findings of Court: The publication was found to be defamatory, meeting the three essential elements of defamation – publication, reference to the plaintiff, and defamatory meaning. (Paras 26, 29)

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved the burden of proving his case of libel against the defendant. (Paras 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that defamatory posts can be actionable without the necessity for direct evidence, as the statement's meaning and publication sufficed to establish defamation according to established principles. (Paras 26, 37)

Result: Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with specified damages and reliefs. (Paras 45)

JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim for damages in respect of a libel contained in a Facebook post that went for full trial. At the close of the plaintiff's case, a submission of no case to answer, was made by the defendant. On 14 March 2022, after considering the written submissions made by the parties, I allowed the plaintiff's claim and made the following orders on the reliefs that were sought:

(i) RM150,000.00 as general damages;

(ii) RM100,000.00 as aggravated damages and exemplary damages;

(iii) that the defendant publish a full apology to the plaintiff in respect of the defamatory statement in which the contents of the apology will be approved by the plaintiff's solicitors and any amendment by the plaintiff's solicitors shall be final.

(iv) the defendant's Facebook account setting be set for "public viewing" and the apology shall tag with @cmlimguaneng and remain published on the defendant's Facebook;

(v) the defendant be restrained from publishing the entire or any part of the Facebook post in the future; and

(vi) interest on the damages awarded at 5% a year from the date of filing of the writ until the date of full settlement.

[2] This judgment contains the full grounds for my decision.

Background

[3] The plaintiff at the material time was the Chief Minister of Penang, Member of Parliament for Bagan, State Assemblyman for Air Putih and the Secretary General of the Democratic Action Party. The defendant was the Commissioner of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia ("PAS") for the State of Perak.

[4] On 18 November 2017 the defendant had posted a Facebook post which contained the plaintiff's name and picture on his personal Facebook account: https://web.facebook.com/razman.zakaria 5 ("his/the Facebook account"). The post also depicts a picture of a woman wearing a tudung. The plaintiff claims that the post contains the following false and defamatory statements:

"(i) Doa moga ini tidak betul. Kalau ianya benar pertimbangkanlah jika anda sudah terlajak bersama PAN;

(ii) LARANGAN BERTUDUNG itu hak pengusaha hotel, Pulau Pinang sokong sepenuhnya "Guan Eng"; and?

(iii) PULAU PINANG SOKONG LARANGAN BERTUDUNG."

[5] The plaintiff's demanded from the defendant for a retraction, removal, apology and damages were not agreed by the defendant. As a result, the plaintiff caused to be commenced this instant action seeking the reliefs stated in para [1] above.

The Statement Of Claim

[6] The plaintiff alleged in para 4 of the statement of claim that on 18 November 2017 the defendant, in his capacity as the Commissioner of PAS for the State of Perak, had:

(a) authored and displayed a false image (the Facebook image); and

(b) authored and uploaded false statements (the false statements)

which are defamatory of the plaintiff, in its ordinary and natural meaning or by way of innuendo, on his Facebook account. The image and statements are collectively referred to hereinafter as the impugned Facebook post.

[7] In para 5 of the statement of claim, it was in the alternative pleaded that the defendant had uploaded the Facebook image on his Facebook account without confirming its validity together with the false defamatory statements authored by him. On reading the statement of claim as a whole I understood this alternative act as the defendant uploading on his Facebook account the Facebook image from an unverified source with the false statements stated therein authored by the defendant.

[8] In para 7 of the statement of claim it is pleaded that the Facebook post referred to the plaintiff. In paras 8 and 9 of the statement of claim the particulars of publication were pleaded as follows: the defendant had uploaded the impugned Facebook post on his Facebook account, or alternatively, the defendant had published the Facebook image post he had taken from an unverified source and added the false statements before uploading on his Facebook account. In para 10 of the statement of claim it is pleaded that the Facebook account is easily accessible by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top