YOKOMASU MARKETING SDN BHD & ANOR vs CHOR TSE MIN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 139

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YOKOMASU MARKETING SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
CHOR TSE MIN – Respondent

Table of Content
1. introduction and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6)
2. the burden of proof in defamation lies with the plaintiff. (Para 3)
3. the impugned notice led to defamation claims based on its contents. (Para 9)
4. summary of the plaintiff's claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

[1] The Appellants ("the Defendants in the High Court") had appealed against the decision of the High Court in Penang which allowed the Respondent's ("the Plaintiff in the High Court") claim with costs. Vide the decision dated 29th September 2015, the Appellants were ordered to pay the Respondent damages for defamation in the sum of RM200,000.00. The 1st Appellant was further ordered to pay the sum of RM76,000.00 being the outstanding salary and directorship's fee totaling RM2,000.00 per month from August 2012 to date of judgment. Costs and interests were also ordered against the Defendants.

[2] Having perused the records of appeal, the written submissions filed herein and having heard the arguments of both learned Counsel for the Respondent and the Appellants we allowed the appeal with costs of RM30,000.00 here and below.

[3] Our reasons for doing so now follow.

[4] For ease of reference the parties will be re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 139

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAYOKOMASU MARKETING SDN BHD & ANOR – AppellantVersusCHOR TSE MIN – Respondent

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YOKOMASU MARKETING SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
CHOR TSE MIN – Respondent