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

2018 MarsdenLR 2932

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
RAUB AUSTRALIAN GOLD MINING SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MKINI DOTCOM SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1073-06-2016]



Petitioner Advocates:Cecil Abraham,Sunil Abraham,Elaine Alexander,Daniel Chua ,Respondent Advocate: James Khong,Syahredzan Johan

The defences of responsible journalism and reportage must be clearly pleaded, with evidence that both sides of a dispute are reported fairly and impartially; failing this, defamation claims can succeed.

Headnote:The Court addressed an appeal regarding the dismissal of defamation and malicious falsehood claims related to allegations made in articles and videos about the appellant's gold mining activities. Citing applicable legal standards, the Court reviewed the trial judge's assessment of public interest and responsible journalism. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, granting damages and an injunction against further publication of defamatory statements.

Table of Content
1. suitability of publication concerning public interest. (Para 1 , 3 , 5)
2. summary of the appellant's claims and background. (Para 2)
3. arguments raised concerning the defence of privilege. (Para 11 , 12)
4. observations on evidence and conduct from the court. (Para 14 , 29 , 75)
5. core issues raised by the appellant in the appeal. (Para 15 , 17 , 18)
6. court's observations and consideration of responsible journalism. (Para 16 , 19 , 21)
7. establishment of ratio regarding qualified privilege and responsible journalism. (Para 24 , 26 , 70)
8. decision on the availability of defenses and their implications. (Para 28)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court on 10 June 2016 dismissing the appellant/the plaintiffs claims premised on the tort of defamation and malicious falsehood in respect of three articles and two videos published in the Malaysiakini news portal by the 1st respondent/defendant.

[2] We heard the appeal over two non-consecutive days. On the second day of hearing, that is on 22 June 2017, learned counsel for the appellant advised this Court that the appellant has been voluntarily wound up by its creditors and that he has been given a warrant to act for the appellants behalf on 19 June 2017. This was confirmed by learned counsel for the respondents as per affidavit affirmed on 21 June 2017 (see encl 8). We then proceeded to continue to hear the case and having perused the appeal records and given due consideration to the respective oral and written submissions of counsel, we reserved our decision. We now give our decision and our reasons for the same.

Background Facts

[3] The appellant, Raub Australian Gold Mining Sdn Bhd ("RAGM") operates a gold mine and produces gold bars at its Carbon-in-Leach ("CIL") plant. The appellant is the only company operating gold mining operations in Bukit Koman, Raub, Pahang.

[4] The 1st respondent, Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd is a company that owns and operates an online news portal known as Malaysiakini which website is www.malaysiakini.com. The 2nd respondent, Lee Weng Keat is the assistant news editor of Malaysiakini. The 3rd respondent, Wong Teck Chi is the senior journalist of Malaysiakini. The 4th respondent, Victor TM Tan was at the material time, an intern at Malaysiakini and was pursuing a degree in Bachelor of Arts in Journalism.

[5] The appellants claim against the respondents arose out of three articles and two videos published by the 1st respondent on its online news portal, http://www.malaysiakini.com. The subject matter of these articles and videos published in 2012, is in relation to the gold mining activities of the appellant, which the respondents alleged had used cyanide, and that such use had caused serious illness to the villagers and death of wildlife and vegetation and environmental pollution in Bukit Koman. The appellant claimed that the words complained of or the impugned statements in the said articles and videos were false and defamatory in nature and were published by the respondents maliciously with intent to injure the appellants reputation, trade and business. The articles and videos published are as follows:

(a) "Villagers Fear For Their Health Over Cyanide Pollution" dated 19 March 2012 ("the 1st article") which was authored by the 2nd respondent;

(b) "78 pct Bukit Koman Folk Have Cyanide-Related Ailments" dated 21 June 2012 ("the 2nd article") which was authored by the 3rd respondent;

(c) a Video presentation published on 21 June 2012 that was linked with the second article ("the first Video");

(d) "Raub Folk To Rally Against Poisonous Gold" dated 2 August 2012 ("the 3rd article") authored by the 4th respondent;

(e) a Video presentation published on 2 August 2012 that was linked with the third article ("the second Video").

[6] The impugned part of the 1st article which is found in para 7 of the Statement of Claim reads as follows:

(a) "Besides suffering from the unbearable stench overnight, villagers have also found yellow powdery spots

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 Back to top