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

2025 MarsdenLR 2642

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ZAID IBRAHIM & ORS – Appellant
Versus
BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-23NCvC-72-09-2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Rueben Mathiavaranam,Mohd Zaid Ibrahim,Liew Teck Huat ,Respondent Advocate: Andrew Chiew Fan Vooi,Jason Koh Wei Siang,Tiffany Low Jia Qi,Hoi Jack S'ng,Celes Chuah Xin Ni,Yee Xin Yi

The Court found that statements in a Press Release were not defamatory as they did not materially lower the Plaintiffs' reputation beyond existing public criticism of their conduct.

Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 99 - Defamation - Professional misconduct allegations made against Plaintiffs in a Press Release - Court finds impugned statements were not defamatory due to pre-existing public knowledge of the matter. (Paras 1-4, 6-8, 16-19)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, senior legal practitioners, contended that a Press Release by the Malaysian Bar defamed them by imputing professional misconduct in high-profile criminal appeal proceedings. They claimed the Defendants conspired to defame them to injure their professional reputation. (Paras 1-3, 10-11, 18)

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the defamatory meanings alleged were not substantiated as the statements were seen merely as institutional commentary in the context of events already publicized. (Paras 81, 97-100)

Issues: The main issues were whether the statements were defamatory, whether they referred to the Plaintiffs, and whether the Defendants had valid defenses. (Paras 16, 84, 91)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the impugned words did not bear a defamatory meaning in light of the substantial public context and did not contravene the Plaintiffs' reputational standing beyond that already affected by the widely known events. (Paras 57, 62, 100)

Result: Claims for defamation, conspiracy to injure, and breach of statutory duty are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court evaluates defamation claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. assessing defamation and defenses. (Para 6 , 12 , 14 , 15)
3. impugned statements analysis. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. identifying issues for trial. (Para 16 , 17)
5. trial outcomes and implications. (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
6. defamation's legal interpretation. (Para 48 , 51 , 56)
7. plaintiffs failed to prove defamation. (Para 81 , 90 , 100)
8. conclusions and final orders. (Para 102 , 103 , 104)
Roz Mawar Rozain J:

[1] This Court is called upon to determine a claim which has attracted public interest by reason of the identities of the parties and the issues it raises concerning the professional conduct of advocates and solicitors in the administration of justice. The Plaintiffs, senior legal practitioners, contended that a Press Release issued on 19 August 2022 by the Malaysian Bar and its then President has defamed them, falsely imputing professional misconduct in connection with high-profile criminal appeal proceedings before the Federal Court.

[2] The Plaintiffs further claimed that the Defendants specifically intended and/or tacitly authorised the media organisations to publish or republish and disseminate the words contained in the Press Release.

[3] It was also contended that the Defendants maliciously and wrongfully conspired and combined amongst themselves to defame and injure the Plaintiffs in the way of their professional capacities as advocates and solicitors having conduct of the criminal appeal proceedings at the Federal Court.

[4] The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants, by having issued and disseminated the Press Release, had decided and condemned them for professional misconduct in the criminal appeal proceedings at the Federal Court and thus were in breach of their statutory duty under s 99 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ).

[5] Given the serious nature of the allegations — touching upon the Plaintiffs' professional reputation and the perceived integrity of the justice system — this Court sets to approach the evidence with care and decide the issues strictly in accordance with established legal principles. Public scrutiny cannot replace the rule of law, and media speculation has no place in judicial deliberation.

Defamation

[6] The task before the Court is to first evaluate whether the Plaintiffs have, on a balance of probabilities, established the essential elements of the tort of defamation, namely that the impugned statements are defamatory, that they refer to the Plaintiffs, and that they were published to third parties. The Court must also consider whether any of the recognised defences to defamation — justification, fair comment, or qualified privilege — have been successfully made out by the Defendant should liability be established.

[7] It is in this context that the Court now turns to examine the pleadings, the evidence adduced, and the submissions of the parties.

The Pleaded Case

[8] The Plaintiffs' claim is premised on a Press Release published on 19 August 2022 by the 2nd Defendant, then President of the 1st Defendant (the Malaysian Bar) on the latter's website. The Press Release was titled:

"Abuse of Process Brings Disrepute to Our Justice System".

[9] The Plaintiffs pleaded that two specific paragraphs of the Press Release, in their natural and ordinary meaning, defamed them. These are paras [2] and [6] of the Press Release. The relevant impugned portions of the Press Release pleaded to be defamatory are as follows:

Paragraph [2]:

"The nation is witnessing our justice system being abused and brought to disrepute through the frantic acts and numerous attempts to postpone the hearing of the case, application to discharge from acting for the former Prime Minister, defiance by refusing to proceed with submissions on the appeal after the Federal Court had made its ruling, and the sudden discharge of Zaid Ibrahim, Liew Teck Huat and Rueben Mathiavaranam, by Dato' Sri Najib Razak."

Paragraph [6]:

"The various attempts to undermine the

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