Back
2011 MarsdenLR 4016
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MASTERSKILL (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SISTEM TELEVISYEN MALAYSIA BERHAD – Respondent
[Suit No: S-23-41-2010]
A broadcast featuring visuals of a party's operations can be deemed defamatory if it leads reasonable viewers to infer damaging information, even if the party is not directly named.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Sections 2 and relevant jurisprudence on libel - The plaintiff alleged defamation due to a news broadcast featuring visuals of the plaintiff's college in conjunction with misleading commentary about deregistration and operational deficiencies of colleges. The plaintiff claimed damages of RM100,000,000. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 22, 34, 66)
(B) Defamatory Meaning - The court established that the ordinary meaning of the broadcast and accompanying visuals conveyed a defamatory message about the plaintiff, resonating with identifiable features of the college. (Paras 21, 30, 41)
(C) Identification in Defamation - Although the plaintiff was not named, the court determined that reasonable people could conclude the broadcast referred to the plaintiff based on viewers' recognition of unique identifiers. (Paras 22, 31, 34)
(D) Defense of Qualified Privilege - The court held that the defense of qualified privilege was not applicable due to the reckless disregard for the truth exhibited by the defendant in the publication process. (Paras 49, 55, 60) (E) Damages - The court assessed damages of RM200,000, awarding interest at 8% per annum and costs of RM50,000. (Paras 66, 77) (F)
Result: Plaintiff awarded damages for defamation; defendant's privilege defense dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impact of visuals on viewer perception of news. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. identifying parties involved in the case. (Para 3) |
| 3. details of the broadcast causing defamation claim. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. plaintiff's specific damages and injunctive relief requested. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. understanding implications in defamation through context. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal criteria for determining defamatory content. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. tests for identification in defamation cases. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. broad legal tests for defamatory references. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. connections between visuals and defamatory news. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. identification of stake in news perceptions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. student testimonies revealing impact of news. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 12. reliability of witness testimony in defamation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 13. importance of establishing context in defamation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 14. qualified privilege in defamation defense. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. factors affecting the qualified privilege evaluation. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 16. implications of delayed action after defamation. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 17. defendants acknowledging events' reach and access. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 18. general damages in defamation law. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 19. circumstances regarding evidence of damages. (Para 68 , 69) |
| 20. assessment of damages in defamation context. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
[1] It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words! These days news broadcast in television is often accompanied by footages and videos (collectively called 'visuals') of what is being broadcast to enhance the news reporting and engage the viewing public.
[2] The juxtaposition of the news and the visuals may have the effect of causing the viewer to associate what is in the news with what is seen in the visuals. The effect especially if the news report is a negative one, can lead viewers to form a negative view of the subject matter shown in the visuals when the subject matter is not only capable of a generic representation of what was broadcast but also bearing a specific reference and a damaging one at that.
Parties
[3] The plaintiff owns and runs a nursing college called Masterskill College at all material time. It has campuses in Cheras, Ipoh, Kota Kinabalu and Kucing. The defendant carries on business of a television broadcaster. The defendant owns TV3 television network with wide and influential broadcast locally and internationally. TV3 is also available online and accessible by internet users.
Problem
[4] The plaintiff was aggrieved by what was aired in the defendant's main news bulletin called Bulletin Utama on 13 March 2010. The news as broadcast in its original language reads inter alia:
"Gagal mematuhi syarat Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi. Pendaftaran 60 kolej swasta dibatalkan. Tindakan itu dilaksanakan sejak tiga tahun lalu. Menurut Timbalan Perdana Menteri Pengajian Tinggi Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah ada diantara kolej terbabit gagal menyediakan pensyarah atau tenaga pengajar yang cukup. Selain tidak menyediakan prasarana dan peralatan pembelajaran yang telah ditetapkan. Tegasnya kementerian tidak akan bertolak ansur dengan mana-mana kolej yang melanggar syarat. Untuk itu permantauan menyeluruh akan dilaksanakan. Ketika ini terdapat lebih 300 kolej swasta berdaftar dan beroperasi di seluruh negara."
In English the news would read:
"Failure to comply with the conditions set by the Ministry of Higher Education. The registration of 60 private colleges have been revoked. This action has been taken since three years ago. According to the Deputy Minister of Higher Education Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah there are colleges involved that had failed to provide enough lecturers and teaching staff. Besides that the failure to provide facilities and teaching aids that are sufficient. According to him the Ministry would not compromise with any colleges that had breached the condit
