Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2687
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LOH LI SZE – Appellant
Versus
EUGENE CHONG HAOU INN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-12BNCVC-16-01/2023]
Defamatory statements made on social media can cause reputational harm, and defenses of justification and fair comment require proof, which was not established in this case.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Principles of publication and malice - The defendant's social media postings about the plaintiffs were found to be defamatory, causing damage to their reputation and business. The trial court awarded RM50,000 in damages. (Paras 2, 25, 66)
(B) Justification and Fair Comment - The defendant's claims of justification and fair comment were rejected as she failed to prove her statements were true and exhibited malice. (Paras 43, 55, 59)
(C) Losses - The court determined that damages for defamation do not require proof of specific losses, as defamatory statements inherently cause reputational harm. (Paras 63, 64)
Facts of the case:
The defendant published three defamatory postings about the plaintiffs after purchasing seafood, claiming they were dishonest and had provided sub-standard products. The plaintiffs had refunded the defendant's payment. (Paras 7, 21)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the defendant's statements were defamatory, actuated by malice, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for harm to their reputation. (Paras 25, 66)
Issues: Whether the defendant's statements constituted defamation, whether her defenses of justification and fair comment were valid, and whether the plaintiffs suffered losses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's statements were defamatory, her defenses were unsupported, and damages were warranted due to the nature of the allegations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. caution against defamation in social media. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's grounds for appeal. (Para 3) |
| 3. background facts of the defamation case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. trial court's findings of fact. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. standards for proving defamation. (Para 32 , 43 , 44 , 55) |
| 6. damages awarded in defamation cases. (Para 50 , 64) |
Introduction
[1] This is a cautionary tale for all owners of social media accounts like Facebook or Instagram, who fancy themselves as influencers, not to misuse their postings to solicit more followers or hits or likes by sensationalizing their postings to the extent of defaming others. In the Internet age, the old adage, "The pen is mightier than the sword", is even more true.
[2] This is a defamation appeal after a full trial. The appeal is filed by the appellant / defendant / Loh Li Sze against the Sessions Court Judge's decision, given on 10 January 2023, wherein the Sessions Court Judge had allowed the respondents' / plaintiffs' defamation suit against the appellant with damages of RM50,000.00 and costs of RM10,000.00.
[3] For the appeal before me, the appellant's Counsel confined himself to only four grounds:
i. There is no defamation against the 2nd respondent company.
ii. The appellant's statements are justified.
iii. The appellant's statements are fair comments.
iv. There are no losses suffered by the respondents.
[4] I heard Counsel on 13 July 2023 and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocatur. The appellant has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. These are my grounds of judgment.
[5] I will refer to the parties as they were referred to in the Court below. That is the appellant as "the defendant" and the respondents as "the plaintiffs".
Background Facts
The Pleaded Case Of The Plaintiffs
[6] At all material times, the 1st plaintiff is the sole director of the 2nd plaintiff company that is in the business of selling and supplying frozen seafood online through Facebook Live and page under the trade name as "JTI Umance". (The Chinese wording of "JTI" means "prawn king"). The 1st plaintiff is also widely known as "Umance".
[Refer to the SSM Search of the 2nd plaintiff at end 5 the Record of Appeal (Part C) pp 55 - 60,]
[7] On 15 January 2020, the defendant had purchased frozen seafood which included frozen prawns, scallops and other seafood for RM360.00 from the plaintiffs online through Facebook Live. Dissatisfied with the weight of the prawns and size of the scallops, the defendant had made a complaint to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs had refunded the money paid for the frozen seafood to the defendant.
[8] However, on or around 7 February 2020, 11 February 2020 and 13 February 2020, the defendant had maliciously published and / or caused to be published three (3) postings in the defendant's Facebook account (known as "Coco Lim (Loh Li Sze)") about the plaintiffs with the photo and/or videos of the 1st plaintiff and / or the workers of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the said Postings").
[The defendant's Facebook Account, known as "Coco Lim (Loh Li Sze)" can be seen at encl 5 the Record of Appeal (Part C) p 1, and the said Postings can be seen at encl 5 the Record of Appeal (Part C) p 2 - 12].
[9] The first of the three Postings in Mandarin published or caused to be published by the defendant on 7 February 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1st Posting") can be seen at encl 5 the Record of Appeal (Part C) p 2.
[10] The Malay translation of the 1st Posting on 7 February 2020 can be seen at encl 5 the Record of Appeal (Part C) p 3 and is reproduced as follows:
Coco Lim
7 Februari
"Kepada netizen-netizen yang dikasihi:
Untuk menjawab keraguan anda, bahawa mengapa saya memadamkan posting, saya menjawabkan secara ringkas di sini
.....
Kerana Encik "Chong Udang" dari "Siaran Langsung yang Paling Popular di seluruh Malaysia" menelefon saya pada hari ketiga selepas saya menerbitkan posting tersebut. Dalam telefon, dia dengan na
