Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2653
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
THIAGARAJAN S RENGASAMY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
SRI GANES PALANIAPAN – Respondent
[Case No: WA-23CY-50-10-2018]
A document classified as Part A is admitted as authentic and true, negating defamation claims based on its contents, which must refer to the plaintiffs to be actionable.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Action for defamation - Plaintiffs claimed defamation based on Facebook posts and statements made during public events - Court held that statements classified as Part A documents are deemed true, negating defamation claims - Plaintiffs failed to prove statements referred to them - Claims dismissed. (Paras 1, 12, 54)
(B) Legal Effect of Part A Documents - A document classified as Part A is admitted as to authenticity and contents, resulting in truth of contents being conceded - Action for defamation based on such contents is untenable. (Paras 20, 30)
(C) Elements of Defamation - To succeed in defamation, plaintiffs must prove statements are defamatory, refer to them, and have been published - Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reference to them in statements made. (Paras 18, 38)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, including a board member of a government fund, initiated defamation action against the defendant, a Facebook user, based on four posts and statements made at a Town Hall Meeting and a media conference, alleging defamatory content. (Paras 1-12)
Findings of Court:
Court found that the Facebook posts were classified as Part A documents, rendering them true, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that the statements made during the events referred to them. (Paras 54-62)
Issues: The key issues were whether the statements made were defamatory and whether they referred to the plaintiffs. (Paras 12, 18, 38)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the classification of the documents as Part A meant the contents were accepted as true, and the plaintiffs did not prove the defamatory nature or reference to them in the statements made. (Paras 20, 38, 54)
Result: Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of defamation action (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defamatory facebook posts details (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. definition and elements of defamation (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. legal effect of part a document classification (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. statements made at town hall and macc media conference (Para 31 , 32 , 34) |
| 6. reference to plaintiffs in defamation (Para 37 , 39 , 42) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of the claim (Para 54 , 62) |
(Enclosure 1)
A document classifield as a Part A document is admitted as to its authenticity and contents resulting in the truth of its contents being conceded, and thus an action for defamation grounded on such contents is like a writ on water.
Introduction
[1] This is an action initiated by the plaintiffs against the defendant grounded on defamation.
[2] The 1st plaintiff was at the relevant time a board member of the Human Resources Development Fund ("HRDF") which is managed by the Human Resources Development Corporation which in turn is an agency under the purview of the Ministry of Human Resources Malaysia. The HRDF is governed by the Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad Act 2001 .
[3] The 1st plaintiff is also the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the second, third and 4th plaintiffs. The second, third and 4th plaintiffs are private limited companies incorporated in Malaysia.
[4] The defendant on the other hand is a facebook user who has absolute use and control over his two accounts under the names of "Sri Ganes" and "Dato' Sri Ganes".
Background Facts
[5] Four Facebook publications ("fb posts") which were published on different times were relied upon by the plaintiffs to ground their defamation action and are set out below.
[6] The first fb post was made on 31 May 2017, whereby the defendant through his Facebook account named "Sri Ganes" posted the following alleged defamatory statement in the form as pleaded in para 9 of the Statement of Claim ("SOC") filed by the plaintiffs and is set out hereunder:
'100s of millions of public funds mishandled so easily';
'...The exchange of gifts are just not about handbags or watches, it has also involved ridiculously expensive tangible assets for closing big unfair deals';
'...every evidence I gather is strongly pointing to the obvious mishandlings in many ways';
'...it looks like I was denied my rights for fair business because some unethical deals of the parties entrusted to perform their fiduciary duties' and 'SO CALL SECTORIAL COMMITEES AND THE BOARD MEMBER (ULTIMATE PROXY AND GATE KEEPER) mechanisms to swindle millions monies which was supposed to be used to build powerful workforce which would be the strong pillar of economy!?'
[7] The second fb post was made on the defendant's Facebook account "Sri Ganes" on 6 June 2018, where the defendant shared an alleged defamatory post made by another Facebook user by the name of "David Marshel". The post as pleaded in para 12 of the SOC is reproduced as follows:
"Power abuse!! Corrupt!!
Salah satu Ahli lembaga HRDF korup menelan ratusan juta ringgit dengan mengunakan persatuan yang ditubuhkan hanya untuk menelan duit rakyat.! Dengan kuasa lembaga pengarah kontrak ratusan juta dari HRDF ditelan. Tidak takut #SPRM? Katanya asalkan bagi menteri BN menang kaki korup ini boleh bermaharajela! Siapakan dalang ini? #Pintar #Talent #nexus
Siapa Ahli Lembaga HDRF ini?"
[8] The third fb post was made on 7 June 2018 by the defendant who uploaded a video on his Facebook account, "Dato' Sri Ganes" which the plaintiffs pleaded in para 14 of their SOC as containing the following alleged defamatory statement:
"Despite a legal notice which was denied in a public forum and months of battle I managed to raise my concerns. The Minister YB Kula Segaran believes in transparency! We have the right man for the job! HRDF - Human Resources Development Fund."
[9] For the fourth and final fb post made on 9 June 2018, the defendant using his Facebook account "Sri Ganes" made another alleged defamatory statem
