Back
2024 MarsdenLR 3170
MAHKAMAH SESYEN SUNGAI PETANI
COOLDEC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD LWN. TEN BROTHERS TIMBER SDN BHD & SATU LAGI
[Guaman Sivil No: KB-B53F-1-09/2018]
The plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the defamatory nature of statements, while the defendant must establish justification through truth, failing which damages are awarded.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Burden of proof - The plaintiff must establish that the statements made are defamatory, refer to them, and were published - The standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities. (Paras 10, 11, 16, 17)
(B) Justification as a defence in defamation - A defendant must prove the truth of defamatory statements to establish justification. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a company, claimed damages for defamation against the defendants for publishing a report indicating the plaintiff owed RM85,000.00. The plaintiff contended this harmed its reputation. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the defendants failed to prove the statements were true, which constituted defamation against the plaintiff. (Paras 34, 41)
Issues: Whether the defendants published the disputed facts, if it constituted defamation, and whether they had a defence of justification. (Paras 15, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants did not establish the truth of the statements made. The publication was defamatory, affecting the plaintiff’s reputation. (Paras 34, 41)
Result: The plaintiff was awarded RM200,000.00 in damages, including general, aggravated, and exemplary damages. (Paras 41)
PENGHAKIMAN
Pengenalan
[1] Plaintif adalah sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar di 11759, Mile 3, Jalan Apas, Lorong Sri Mawar, 91000, Tawau, Sabah.
[2] Defendan Pertama merupakan sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di Malaysia dan mempunyai alamat berdaftar di No 22 & 24, ground Floor, Lebuh Kota Permai 1, Taman Kota Permai, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang dan alamat perniagaan di No 34, Jalan Sentosa 1/3, Taman Desa Sentosa, 09600 Lunas, Kedah.
[3] Defendan Kedua merupakan seorang individu yang mempunyai alamat penyampaian di No 34, Jalan Sentosa 1/3, Taman Desa Sentosa, 09600 Lunas, Kedah. Beliau juga adalah pengarah bagi Defendan Pertama.
[4] Tindakan ini difailkan atas kausa tindakan fitnah yang didakwa telah dilakukan oleh defendan-defendan terhadap plaintif.
Tuntutan Plaintif
[5] Dalam kes ini Plaintif menuntut terhadap Defendan bagi gantirugi akibat fitnah yang didakwa telah dilakukan oleh Defendan. Plaintif mendakwa bahawa:
"Pada sekitar 11 Julai 2018, Defendan-Defendan telah menerbit dan/atau menyebabkan untuk menerbitkan suatu kenyataan dalam laman web CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd dengan repot nombor: CM-3094-20180718115403."
[6] Laporan kredit yang diterbitkan oleh CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd tersebut (sepertimana dalam perenggan 6 Pernyataan Tuntutan) telah merujuk kepada Plaintif sebagai berhutang kepada Defendan-Defendan melebihi 180 hari sebanyak RM85,000.00. Plaintif mendakwa bahawa laporan kredit tersebut telah mencemarkan kebolehpercayaan, watak dan reputasi Plaintif.
[7] Plaintif menuntut terhadap defendan-defendan bagi Gantirugi Am, Gantirugi Tauladan, Gantirugi Teruk, Yuran Guaman, faedah dan kos.
Pembelaan Defendan
[8] Defendan dalam pembelaannya membangkitkan pembelaan tiada penerbitan dan justifikasi.
[9] Selanjutnya, Defendan memplidkan bahawa plaintif sememangnya mempunyai hutang sebanyak RM85,000.00 kepada defendan-defendan. Oleh itu perkataan-perkataan atau penyataan-penyataan yang didakwa fitnah oleh plaintif adalah suatu fakta yang benar.
Undang-Undang Pembuktian Dalam Kes Sivil
[10] Pembuktian di dalam kes-kes sivil adalah atas imbangan kebarangkalian. Dalam kes Inas Faiqah Mohd Helmi v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors; [2016] 2 CLJ 885; [2016] 2 AMR 217; [2016] 1 PIR 16, Mahkamah Persekutuan menyatakan bahawa:
"The standard of proof in civil cases is the legal standard to which a party is required to prove its case, namely on a balance of probabilities. In civil litigation, the question of probability or improbability of an action occurring is an important consideration to be taken into account in deciding whether that particular event had actually taken place or not."
[11] Begitu juga, dalam kes Yeohata Machineries Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Coil Master Sdn Bhd & Ors; [2016] 2 CLJ 414, pada ms 421-422 Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan:
"In law, the party who desires the court to give judgment in its favour as to any legal right or liability bears the burden of proof (s 101(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 ). The burden of proof on that party is twofold: (i) the burden of establishing a case; and (ii) the burden of introducing evidence.
The burden of proof lies on the party throughout the trial. The standard of proof required of the plaintiff is on the balance of probabilities. The evidential burden of proof is only shifted to the other party once that party has discharged its burden of proof."
[12] Plaintif menanggung beban untuk membuktikan tuntutannya sepertimana yang dikehendaki di bawah s 101 Akta Keterangan 1950. Seksyen 101, Akta Keterangan memperuntukkan seperti berikut:
"(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of nay fact, it is said that the Burden of proof lies on that person."
[13] Dalam kes Yatin Mahmood v. Mohd Madzhar Sapuan & Ors; [2010] 8 MLJ 647, Mahkamah menyatakan:
"... The burden of proof lies on the party th
