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

2025 MarsdenLR 5636

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
HONG AN LIANG – Appellant
Versus
CHEE TECK WAH – Respondent
[Writ Summons No: JA-23NCVC-7-06-2021]



The court held that the Plaintiff must substantiate claims for general damages in defamation cases, emphasizing that reasonable compensation should reflect the loss and impact on reputation while distinguishing it from aggravated damages.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 37 r 1 - Assessment of damages - Plaintiff awarded RM50,000.00 as general damages and RM20,000.00 as exemplary damages for defamation due to statements published by Defendant - Plaintiff proved general damages but lacked sufficient evidence for aggravated damages - Factors considered include Plaintiff's social standing and impact of defamatory statements. (Paras 2, 11-12, 28, 52)

(B) Defamation - Burden of proof - Plaintiff must prove damages suffered despite default from Defendant - Citations from case law emphasize that damages should reflect reasonable compensation and vindication of reputation in defamation cases. (Paras 30-33, 35-51)

(C) Damages assessment - No fixed formula for damages - Consideration of various factors including gravity, extent of publication, and Plaintiff's status is paramount in determining the amount awarded. (Paras 41-42)

(D) No award for aggravated damages due to absence of exceptional conduct - Defendant's actions lacked the requisite motivating factors for such an award. (Paras 49-51)

Table of Content
1. assessment of damages in default judgment (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of defamation case (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. issues for determination in damages (Para 10)
4. evidence of damages suffered by plaintiff (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. burden of proof in assessing damages (Para 18 , 19)
6. insufficient evidence for claimed losses (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. allowed charges for dental procedures (Para 26 , 27)
8. functions of general damages (Para 28 , 29)
9. factors influencing defamation damages (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
10. assumptions in default judgment cases (Para 33 , 34)
11. recent trends in defamation awards (Para 35 , 36)
12. determining reasonable damage awards (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
13. principles for awarding exemplary damages (Para 42 , 43)
14. rationale for exemplary damages (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
15. criteria for aggravated damages (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
16. final decision and awarded damages (Para 52)
Wong Mee Ling J:

Introduction

[1] This is an application for assessment of damages filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to O 37 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 based on the Judgment in Default of Defence dated 13 October 2021.

[2] After hearing the evidence of the Plaintiff and submission by the Plaintiff's solicitor, I have allowed the claim as follows:

(a) general damages of RM50,000.00;

(b) exemplary damages of RM20,000.00;

(c) interest at 5% per annum on the amount of the judgment from the date of this order until full settlement; and

(d) no order as to costs.

[3] Below are my grounds for the decision.

Background

[4] The background facts in this application are gathered from the cause papers and submissions filed by the Plaintiff and stated in chronological order.

[5] The Plaintiff had filed this civil suit alleging that the Defendant on 16 May 2021 had published and/or caused to publish a Facebook Post using his Facebook account under the name of "Andy Chee" which contains the following impugned words (together with images of the clinic named "Klinik Pergigian Dr Hong" and/or the Plaintiff):

"This is a (dodgy, black-hearted, dental dentist) at Johor Bahru, located at (same row with Ng Ming Huat), named: Dr Hong Dental Clinic! Dr Matthew Hong."

"My friend went to the clinic to do 1 tooth filling on 13 May 2021 Thursday at 11 morning. The dentist ask to take X-ray (Instructed must to take) RM150.00. Remark: Never heard must take X-ray for dental filing! Except: tooth extraction or surgery only required to take X-ray! My friend told to the dentist that no need to take, but the dentist forced my friend to take X-ray, then only can do filling!"

"I asked the dentist, why so expensive for my friend to do tooth filling at RM800.00! The dentist said that is my first visit so the dentist gave me a discount. My friend also first visit, why dentist did not give discount! I even inquired to other dentist that how much for 1 tooth filling? The other dentist said is between RM120.00-RM250.00. It doesn't mean that my friend can't afford to pay RM800.00! But to pay RM800.00 just for 1 tooth filling (including 2 packs of medicine). So my friend here is to tell everyone don't be next victim."

(hereinafter referred to as "the Statement")

[6] The Defendant allegedly had, on the same day, published and/or caused to publish the statement in other 3 Facebook groups.

[7] Dissatisfied with the publication of the Statement by the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued a notice of demand dated 21 May 2021 to the Defendant to demand, inter alia, as follows:

(a) immediately cease and desist making and/or publishing any defamatory and baseless statements and allegations against the Plaintiff;

(b) immediately remove the Statement published and/or caused to be published by the Defendant on Facebook and/or any other social media platform and/or any other online website; and

(c) publish a full and complete withdrawal and unreserved apology to the Plaintiff.

[8] The Defendant had failed, refused and/or neglected to comply with 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