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

2023 MarsdenLR 1516

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
INDRANI RAMASAMY – Appellant
Versus
KESAVAN SUBRAMANIAM – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1244-07-2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Rueben Mathiavaranam,Sumita Balasubramaniam ,Respondent Advocate: Azhar Arman Ali,Aina Syazwani

The court ruled that a plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the statements were defamatory, but the defendant's failure to present evidence can shift the burden back to the plaintiff to establish the claim.

Headnote:(A) Defamation - Burden of proof - The Plaintiff claimed defamation against the Defendant for press statements made on 18 May 2019 - The High Court dismissed the claim, citing public policy considerations due to the parties' immoral conduct - The Court of Appeal found the dismissal erroneous, ruling that the Plaintiff had established the elements of defamation and the Defendant failed to substantiate his defense. (Paras 9, 10, 40, 50)

(B) Public Policy - The court emphasized that it cannot entertain claims arising from immoral conduct, but must still assess the evidence presented. (Paras 24, 32)

(C) Damages - The Court awarded RM80,000 as general and aggravated damages, emphasizing the need for compensation for defamation even without proof of actual damage. (Paras 40, 49)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a political party treasurer, alleged defamation due to statements made by the Defendant, a Member of Parliament, during a press conference, which were published online. The Defendant claimed the statements were justified. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
The Court of Appeal concluded that the Plaintiff met the burden of proof for defamation, and the Defendant's failure to present evidence undermined his defense. (Paras 27, 39)

Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiff established her defamation claim, the appropriateness of the Defendant's submissions, and the implications of public morality on the case. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to establish defamation, and the Defendant's failure to provide evidence allowed the Plaintiff's claims to be accepted as true. (Paras 19, 39)

Result: The Plaintiff's appeal is allowed, awarding RM80,000 in damages and costs. (Paras 50)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' arguments and claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis and observations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. ratio decidendi regarding defamation. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
5. final conclusion and order. (Para 50)
Kamaludin Md Said JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the High Court in dismissing the Appellant's claim for defamation against the Respondent on 29 June 2022 delivered after a full trial. The High Court also ordered that parties bear their own costs.

[2] At the High Court the Appellant, Indrani a/p Ramasamy is the Plaintiff married with two children and at all material times was the Treasurer of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Sungai Siput Branch. The Respondent, Kesavan a/l Subramaniam is the Defendant and at all material times, was the Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput from Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

[3] At a press conference called for by the Defendant on 18 May 2019, the Defendant spoke and published his press statement to persons representing the various media organizations comprising reporters, photographers, cameramen ("members of the press") and/or in the presence and hearing of all persons present.

[4] The press statements were recorded and broadcast by the media on 18 May 2019 over StarTV.com and also posted on the Defendant's Facebook page. The impugned publications are both annexed as "Lampiran A" and "Lampiran B" in the Statement of Claim as follows-

Lampiran A

"Transcript

Speaker

YB Kesavan Subramaniam

START

Sejahtera dan selamat tengah hari, bersama saya YB Sivanesan EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Perak, dan semua wartawan yang saya hormati sekalian. Pada tengah hari ini saya buat satu kenyataan media berkenaan dengan satu laporan polis yang telah dibuat oleh seorang wanita terhadap saya. Ini adalah kenyataan media saya. Sedia maklum, satu laporan polis berniat jahat yang telah dibuat terhadap saya oleh seorang wanita yang mengaku sebagai pegawai penyelidik Parlimen saya. Pertama kali saya dihubungi oleh wanita tersebut ialah sekitar tahun 2017 semasa saya mengendalikan kempen membantah pemindahan pengundi-pengundi hantu ke kawasan Dewan Undangan Negeri Hutan Melintang. Pada ketika itu saya adalah ADUN Hutan Melintang. Saya dihubungi oleh wanita ini yang pada ketika itu memaklumkan mahu membantu kempen saya menghalang pemindahan pengundi hantu ke kawasan DUN Hutan Melintang. Dia mengaku dia seorang peguam yang boleh membantu saya dan memaklumkan dia juga rapat dengan Datuk V. Elango, Pengerusi MIC Perak, yang pada ketika itu dan kini turut mahu bertanding di DUN Hutan Melintang. Saya menerima tawaran bantuan itu dengan terbuka kerana dia mahu menjadi sukarelawan yang mahu membantu kempen saya, seperti juga ramai sukarelawan parti yang lain. Sekitar kempen PRU 14, ada rakaman audio yang melibatkan wanita ini dan Datuk V. Elango yang disebar melalui WhatsApp. Wanita ini membuat beberapa tuduhan terhadap Datuk V. Elango melalui rakaman audio itu. Selepas saya menjadi Ahli Parlimen Sungai Siput, dia menyatakan hasrat ingin membantu saya secara sukarelawan walaupun dia sudah mempunyai keluarga dengan dua orang anak dan tinggal di Puchong. Ketika itu, dia berkelakuan seperti kawan kepada saya dan isteri saya. Dia selalu menelefon saya dan isteri saya. Pernah juga dia menjemput saya dan isteri untuk bercuti bersamanya di Melaka. Lama-kelamaan, kekerapan dia menelefon saya semakin bertambah sehingga berpuluh kali sehari. Jika saya tidak menjawab, dia mula marah. Apabila saya menjawab, ada kalanya perbualan melebihi lebih satu jam setiap kali. Juga mula campur tangan dalam hal rumah tangga saya. Dia pernah menyebarkan berita di kalangan rakan sekerja isteri saya yang memburuk-burukkan isteri saya. Seolah-olah dia mahu perkahwinan kami bermasalah. Menjelang Septe

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