The court established that defamatory statements made on social media can lead to liability, regardless of the defendant's belief in their truth, and awarded damages for reputational harm.

JUDGMENT

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik JC:

Introduction

[1] This is a defamation claim involving statements made by the Defendant in a Facebook post on 15 June 2021 ("Facebook Post") and a Telegram group chat on 30 June 2021 ("Telegram Chat"). The Plaintiff complains that these publications identify him and are capable of being understood to bear the defamatory meaning that he is a "big con man" and a "fraudster" ("Alleged Defamation").

[2] In the action, the Defendant pleaded only a denial. The only substantive pleading is related to his counterclaim of defamation arising from the alleged publication of a letter of demand dated 29 June 2021 from the Plaintiff s solicitors ("Letter of Demand"). The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff published the Letter of Demand and that it defamed him. The Plaintiff denied publishing it other than to the Defendant.

Issues For Determination

[3] Per Ayob Saud v. TS Sambanthamurthi ; 1989 MarsdenLR 941 ; [1989] 1 CLJ (Rep) 321, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to show (1) the words are defamatory (2) the words refer to the claimant, and (3) the words were published. It is noted that neither party pleaded any positive defences to the claims of defamation alleged against each other. In other words, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant put each other to strict proof of the claim and counterclaim and raised no substantive issues of justification and/or privilege.

[4] Thus, the only issues for determination in this action are as follows:

(a) Whether the Alleged Defamation in the Facebook Post and Telegram Chat (i) is defamatory; (ii) refers to the Plaintiff; and (iii) was published by the Defendant.

(b) Whether the publication of the Letter of Demand on the Telegram Chat (i) is defamatory; (ii) refers to the Defendant; and (iii) was published by the Plaintiff.

(c) Whether the parties are entitled to any remedies and the quantification of damages, if any.

Analysis And Findings

Alleged Defamation By Defendant

[5] The offending statement in the Facebook Post was reproduced in the Statement of Claim. According to the Plaintiff, the impugned Facebook posts with the Alleged Defamation appeared on the Facebook wall of "Bean Wong" with group photographs of the Plaintiff captioned with the lengthy statement on 15 June 2021. The Facebook account in question is owned and operated by the Defendant.

[6] A printout of the Facebook Post was produced at the trial with translation. Among other things said, the author who referred to himself as "the editor," sought to warn readers about the Plaintiff's alleged operation of an unlicensed broker house called "Cooper Markets Forex Broker House" and urged investors to lodge police reports so that the police will investigate it for "illegal deposit-taking."

[7] For a sense of the nature of the statement, I reproduce an extract (translation of Chinese text):

"Berita besar, berita besar! Ada berita ini! Yang asyik cakap berita palsu itu masa akan membuktikan segala-galanya dan membuatkan kamu semua percaya terhadapnya, menurut pengalaman dan pandangan penyunting selama ini serta selepas melawan dengan beberapa penipu selama ini tiada sesiapa pun dapat larikan diri, halaman yang sebelum ini kamu kata bahawa Kackson Chua Chin Soon I/C: 891127-14-6085 adalah seorang penipu (fraudster) dan juga terdapat banyak komplot yang mempertahankannya melaporkan halaman ini, serta kata bahawa ini adalah berita palsu, taktik seorang penipu (fraudster) kebiasaannya adalah menolak segala liabilitinya kepada orang lain, sebelum ini sudah pernah cakap Kackson Chua Chin Soon I/C: 891127-14-6085 merupakan seorang penipu (fraudster) daripada kumpulan penipu CCI Sdn Bhd tetapi kamu semua tidak percaya, serta kata bahawa COOPER MARKETS Forex Broker House yang dioperasi olehnya juga tidak mempunyai lesen kamu semua juga memilih tidak percaya malah datang menyerang halaman saya ini, haha!..."

[8] On 29 June 2021, the Plaintiff issued the Letter of Demand to the Defendant. On 30 June 2021, former solicitors for the