SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 MarsdenLR 2055

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LOH LI SZE – Appellant
Versus
EUGENE CHONG HAOU INN & ANOR – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Loh Cien Zen ,Respondent Advocate: Stephen Lee

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)
Leong Wai Hong JC:

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. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top