DATO DR LOW BIN TICK vs DATUK CHONG THO CHIN & OTHER CASES

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 MarsdenLR 622

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DATO DR LOW BIN TICK – Appellant
Versus
DATUK CHONG THO CHIN & OTHER CASES – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Malik Imtiaz Sarwar,Robert Low,Helen Lim ,Respondent Advocate: Chan Tse Yuan,Michael Teo,Lee Siew Lin,Tan Foong Luen,Koh Xiao Xuan

Table of Content
1. circumstances leading to the defamation claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 12 , 15)
2. key legal questions regarding privilege. (Para 4)
3. court’s examination of legal defenses. (Para 18 , 20 , 22)
4. principle of absolute privilege established in case law. (Para 23 , 24 , 30)
5. interpreting absolute privilege in relation to public policy. (Para 28 , 34 , 42)
6. privilege and duty in lodging complaints. (Para 46)

[1] There are four appeals heard before us. These appeals are against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 3 December 2014 in Civil Appeal No: W-02-1701-07-2012 which was heard together with Civil Appeal Nos: W-02-18-01-2013, W-02-1662-07-2012 and W-02-1700-07-2012.

[2] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants appeals (save for interest and costs) and affirmed the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2012 allowing the respondents claims against the appellant for defamation. The High Court awarded general damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages against the appellant.

[3] The respondents claims against the appellant were in respect of a police report and letters of complaint lodged by the appellant with the Commercial Crime Division, Kuala Lumpur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 MarsdenLR 622

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYADATO DR LOW BIN TICK – AppellantVersusDATUK CHONG THO CHIN & OTHER CASES – Respondent

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
DATO DR LOW BIN TICK – Appellant
Versus
DATUK CHONG THO CHIN & OTHER CASES – Respondent