The court clarified that defamatory statements made on social media can significantly harm a person's reputation, warranting damages even if the plaintiff does not prove exact injury amounts.

JUDGMENT

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin JC:

Introduction

[1] The parties will be referred to as they were at the Sessions Court, ie P, D1, D2 and D3, respectively since the plaintiff and defendants have appealed and cross-appealed against the whole decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) delivered on 6 January 2023. The SCJ had since retired and unfortunately, she did not prepare a written grounds of judgment of her decision. Therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of assessing the rationale of the SCJ in a proper written grounds of judgment but had only the records of appeal and broad grounds as per the Notes of Evidence on 6 January 2023 (refer to pp 408-425 of the Rekod Rayuan Tambahan 2 (RRT2)).

[2] There were 2 appeals filed separately to the High Court and they were Civil Appeal No AB-12BNCVC-5-01-2023 and AB-12BNCVC-6-01-2023. In short, they will be referred to as Appeal No 5 and Appeal No 6, respectively. Appeal No 5 was filed by D2 and D3 whereas Appeal No 6 was filed by the P. At the end of the trial in the Sessions Court, the SCJ decided as follows:

"1. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Pertama ditolak dengan kos RM10,000.00;

2. Tuntutan Plaintif terhadap Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga dibenarkan dengan kos sebanyak RM10,000.00 untuk dibayar oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga;

3. Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga diarahkan untuk dipampaskan dengan sejumlah RM10,000.00 dibayar kepada Plaintif yang dipertanggungjawabkan secara bersesama dan berasingan atas siaran dan ulasan negative di 'Facebook' dan aplikasi WhatsApp mengenai Plaintif;

4. Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga hendaklah membuat permohonan maaf secara rasmi dan penjelasan di dalam Facebook milik masing- masing yang mana status tersebut adalah untuk paparan umum di mana kandungan kenyataan permohonan maaf tersebut hendaklah disemak dan idahkan oleh Plaintif terlebih dahulu;

5. Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun ke atas ganti rugi yang diawardkan dari tarikh penghakiman sehingga penyelesaian penuh;

6. Tuntutan kos oleh Plaintif terhadap penarikan balik tuntutan balas oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga tidak dibenarkan.".

[3] Earlier, there was an application in encl 5 by D2 and D3 for extension of time to file the Rekod Rayuan due to the fact that their solicitors had unintentionally overlooked the deadline and breached it by three days. On 25 May 2023, the Court heard the application and allowed it and then directions were given for filing of the additional records of appeals and written submissions. The appeals were heard together on 10 November 2023 and 24 November 2023. The Court adjourned the cases and judgment was delivered on 30 January 2024 where this Court found that the SCJ had erred when she dismissed the P's claims against D1 with costs. The Court allowed the appeal by the P (Appeal No 6) against all three defendants with costs and the appeal by D2 and D3 (Appeal No 5) was dismissed with no order as to costs.

[4] Specifically, the Court ordered that:

i. D1 to pay general damages of RM25,000.00 and costs of RM10,000.00 to the P;

ii. in regard to the general damages of RM10,000.00 to be paid by D2 and D3 jointly to the P, the Court substituted the amount with RM30,000.00 against D2 and costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid to the P and RM20,000.00 against D3 and costs of RM5,000.00 to be paid to the P;

iii. in regard to the claim for special damages where the SCJ dismissed it, the Court allowed the amount of RM56,400.00 in special damages as the P was able to justify the amount in relation to the loss of income from cancellations of course attendance;

iv. additionally, the special damages were to be shared equally among the three defendants to be paid to the P;

v. the Court allowed costs of RM5,000.00 to be shared equally between D2 and D3 to be paid to the P for withdrawal of the counterclaim by D2 and D3 against the P after the trial has commenced and the P had finished giving her evidence;

vi. the Court further ordered that the costs allowed are to cover the "costs