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

2024 MarsdenLR 687

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SEEMA ELIZABETH ISOY – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DAVID CHIU TAT-CHEONG – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-54-09-2023(W)]



Petitioner Advocates:Manmohan Singh Kang,Aneera Joshini Chowdhury,Lu Yiing Suey ,Respondent Advocate: DP Naban,Austen Pereira,Sivabalan Karupiah,Goh Wan Ping

A half-truth statement in defamation can be as damaging as a falsehood, particularly when it omits crucial facts that alter the overall impression of the statement.

Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 - Sections 8 and 9 - Civil Law Act 1956 - Section 3 - Defamation suit regarding half-truth statement - The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the statement defamatory and awarded RM100,000 in damages - The court emphasized that the omission of the acquittal of the plaintiff from the statement constituted a half-truth, rendering it defamatory. (Paras 1, 16, 34, 49)

(B) Half-Truths in Defamation - The court established that a half-truth can be as damaging as an outright falsehood, particularly if it creates a false impression regarding a person's character. The appellant's failure to disclose the plaintiff's acquittal was deemed malicious and not protected by the defences of justification or fair comment. (Paras 34, 39, 48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant made a statement in a Whatsapp group implying the respondent was dishonest and a fraudster, omitting the fact that he had been acquitted of previous charges. The High Court initially dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal reversed this, awarding damages to the respondent.

Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned statement was defamatory due to the omission of the respondent's acquittal, which constituted a half-truth that misled the audience regarding his character.

Issues: Whether the half-truth doctrine applies in defamation and the implications of omitting acquittal information in such cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that half-truths can be defamatory, and the omission of critical information can lead to a false impression detrimental to a person's reputation. The appellant's act of withholding the acquittal was deemed malicious.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision.

JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is another defamation suit brought by an aggrieved party for this Court's determination. Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, the respondent before this Court, was the plaintiff at the High Court and Seema Elizabeth Isoy, the appellant, was the defendant. After a full trial before the High Court, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. However, the plaintiff succeeded in his appeal at the Court of Appeal where the decision of the High Court was set aside and the plaintiff's claim was allowed. The plaintiff was awarded damages of RM100,000.00. Hence, the present appeal.

[2] The appeal before us, essentially, centers on the effect of a half-truth statement in defamation law in Malaysia, particularly whether a half-truth statement constitutes a false statement. On 28 August 2023, upon the appellant's application for leave to appeal, this Court granted the following questions:

Question 1

Are Malaysian Courts jurisdictionally competent to rely on foreign common law as far as it relates to the doctrine of 'half-truth' in deciding whether a statement is defamatory or otherwise when the provision of s 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956 prohibits this reliance in circumstances where local statutory provisions provide a remedy as decided in the case of Chong Chieng Jen v. Government of State of Sarawak, [2019] 3 MLJ 300?

Question 2

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, would the provisions of:

(i) Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 sufficiently provides a basis for the defence of justification in a situation where the impugned statement is 'substantially true'? and/or

(ii) Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 sufficiently provides a basis for the defence of fair comment in a situation where the impugned statement is based on true matters?

Question 3

If the second question is answered in the affirmative:

(i) Would a 'substantially true' statement mentioning criminal charges as having been instituted against a plaintiff in a defamation suit be protected by the provision of s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 despite the absence of a mention that the plaintiff was eventually acquitted of those charges? and/ or

(ii) Would a true statement mentioning criminal charges as having been instituted against a plaintiff in a defamation suit be protected by the provision of s 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 despite the absence of a mention that the plaintiff was eventually acquitted of those charges?

Question 4

Whether the doctrine of 'half-truth' applicable in the threshold test for defamation which the 2-step process is affirmed by the Federal Court in Chong Chieng Jen v. Government of State of Sarawak, [2019] 3 MLJ 300?

The Background Facts

[3] Seema Elizabeth Isoy, the appellant, is the registered owner of a unit in Waldorf & Windsor Tower Serviced Apartments (W&W) which was developed by Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd ("Mayland"). She was also a committee or sub-committee member of the W&W Management Corporation ("MC"). The appellant together with 55 other persons were in the W&W Whatsapp Group, consisting of unit owners or their representatives.

[4] Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, the respondent, is a businessman and the Chairman and founder of Mayland.

[5] There were several legal disputes in Court involving Mayland and W&W and in one of the cases, the High Court decided that Mayland had defrauded and/or made a false representation to W&W owners in respect of a common area in W&W. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and Mayland application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was not granted by the Federal Court.

[6] On 17 August 2017, the appellant sent a text message ("impugned statement") to the W&W Whatsapp Group which reads:

"In order for owners to know all the facts, I believe we have to step back even more and ask "who is Mayland?"

Mayland is the CHIU family.

So who is this Chiu family?

Let's have a very brief look at the publicly known facts about his family:

- The C

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