Back
2021 MarsdenLR 944
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LIU THIAN LEONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
JEE NYEN CHONG & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: Q-02(W)-859-04/2018]
Defamatory statements about SHC's office-bearers, though not naming them, can be actionable if they imply dishonorable conduct and lack of transparency.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Nature and Meaning - The court discussed the capacity in which the plaintiffs were referred to in the nine articles published following a press conference, finding that the publications were capable of bearing defamatory meaning - The allegations implied abuse of office and lacked transparency by SHC office-bearers - The court affirmed that even if the plaintiffs were not personally named, the context pointed to their identity as key office-bearers. (Paras 11, 12, 32, 33)
(B) Justification - Required Elements - The defence of justification failed as the defendants could not prove that the statements were true, especially concerning serious allegations that linked them to the death of a basketball player and transparency issues in SHC management. (Paras 44-49, 56)
(C) Qualified Privilege - Application - The court held that the communications made during the press conference were not protected by qualified privilege as they were not made to parties with a corresponding interest due to their broad dissemination. (Paras 62-66)
(D) Malice - Burden of Proof - The court found that express malice was not proven, affirming the learned trial judge's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims regarding malice. (Paras 67-71).
Result: Appeal partially allowed; damages awarded to SHC quashed while individuals' damages affirmed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appeal and cross-appeal originate from the trial of a counterclaim in a defamation suit in the High Court. The trial of the main claim was concluded much earlier on 4 January 2013. The counterclaim decision was delivered on 4 December 2017. Prior to the trial, parties agreed to be bound by the evidence adduced in the main claim trial. Due to the long interval between the main claim trial and the counterclaim trial, different High Court judges presided at the said trials. The judgment of the trial judge in the main trial is reported as Liu Thian Leong & Ors v. Jee Nyien Chong & Ors, [2014] 10 CLJ 511; [2013] MLJ 10 398. As we said earlier, the instant appeal is from the decision in the counterclaim. We shall refer to the judge who tried the counterclaim as the trial judge. Where necessary, we shall refer to the judge who tried the main claim as the main claim trial judge. As for the parties, the trial judge and counsel referred to the defendants in the main trial (Jee Nyen Chong, Voon Sam Ted and Chong Vui Kuet) as the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the main trial (Liu Thian Leong, Chong Jit Leong and Chang Hon Hiung) as the defendants. We shall do likewise.
Background Facts
[2] Like the counterclaim trial judge herein, we shall first refer to the facts that were summarised by the main claim trial judge to place in context the issues that arise in this appeal.
[3] The facts underpinning the action arose in Siburan. It was once a village located near Kuching, Sarawak. By the time of this action, it had prospered into a small town. In 1973, some of the villagers registered a society called Siburan Village Hall Committee (SHC). The executive committee consisted of a chairman, a vice-chairman, an honorary secretary, an honorary assistant secretary, a treasurer, an assistant treasurer and five ordinary members. The main purpose was to raise funds, construct and run a hall for the benefit of villagers. In due course, with funds from a government grant and public donations, a three-storey building was constructed. It housed a multipurpose hall and a basketball Court (the Siburan Hall). Membership of the SHC was on paper open to all villagers, subject to the approval of the executive committee of SHC.
[4] During the trial, it was alleged that the initial membership of 20 had dwindled to only ten in 2010. It was also alleged that the SHC had practised discrimination in respect of the use of the facilities of the Siburan Hall. However, the event that set off a chain of events that led to litigation was a tragedy that took the life of a young female basketball player from Siburan. It was alleged by some residents that she was not allowed to use the Siburan Hall for training. Therefore, she travelled to a nearby village by the name of Beratok. On her way back to Siburan, she died in a road accident. Sometime after this accident, the SHC received a letter of demand from 190 villagers to be admitted as members and for facilities of the Siburan Hall to be opened up to the residents. The SHC did not accede to this request.
[5] A dialogue was held between Siburan residents and the executive committee of the SHC on 30 April 2008. It was initiated by Dr Jerip Susil who was a member of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly at the material time. The SHC was at that time headed by one Penghulu Boon Jim Lim. But he passed away sometime later and thus was not a party or a witness in the trial that followed. Penghulu Boon and the disgruntled residents apparently agreed for a "sub-committee" to be established to look into the recruitment of new members. The "sub-committee" was established on the same day with Liu Thian Leong as chairman, Chang Hon Hiung as secretary and Liew Kuet Min as treasurer. Pursuant to this dialogue, a total of 50 applications by Siburan villagers were submitted to the executive committee. Among the applicants were Liu Thian Leong, Chong Jit Leong and Chang Hon Hiung (the defen
