Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2829
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
GAN PEI LING – Appellant
Versus
YONG MEE LEE & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-109-10/2024]
The defendant must prove the truth of the main sting of a defamation claim rather than every detail, and defamation is assessed through an objective standard of perception by reasonable persons.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act, 1957 - Section 8 - The principal issues include the truth of the defamatory imputations, the defence of qualified privilege, and the award of aggravated damages - The court clarified that for the defence of justification to succeed, the defendant must prove the truth of the main sting of the libel rather than every assertion. (Paras 22, 30, 32, 48)
(B) Defamation - Defamatory Imputations - Nature of Test - The test for defamation is objective, focusing on how a reasonable person perceives the statements, not merely literal meanings. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Appeals - The appellate court found that the Sessions Court failed to properly analyze evidence and reached conclusions based on inadequate scrutiny, necessitating intervention. (Paras 27, 48)
Facts of the case:
The Defendant's Facebook posts allegedly defamed the Plaintiffs by associating them with a cult, leading to damages awarded by the Sessions Court. The High Court set aside the award and remitted various issues for reconsideration. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the Plaintiffs proved that the defamatory imputations in both suits were substantially true, allowing the appeals and setting aside the Sessions Court's judgment. (Paras 48)
Issues: The key issues addressed were whether the imputations were defamatory, the viability of the justification defence, and the appropriateness of damages previously awarded. (Paras 19, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized that the Sessions Court's findings were flawed due to inadequate analysis of evidence, which affected the overall judgment. The truth of the main imputation was established based on extensive evidence. (Paras 48)
Result: Appeals allowed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and initial judgments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. clarification of re-trial and sessions court's role. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. identification of parties and societal roles involved. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. nature of imputations derived from posts. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. definition of defamatory statements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal standards for determining defamatory nature. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. establishing the defense of justification. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. consideration of cult characteristics and comparisons. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. court's evaluation of the evidence presented. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. evidence regarding claims of altered behavior. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. communications and estrangement patterns. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 12. discussion of admissibility of evidence. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. shifting onus of proof and court's observations. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 14. court's conclusion on testimonies and evidence. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
Introduction
[1] This appeal originated from two consolidated suits at the Sessions Court by the Respondents who were 2 sets of Plaintiffs in No BA-B53F-4-02/2020 ("Suit 4") and Suit No BA-B53F-15-08/2019 ("Suit 15") respectively. The Plaintiffs had claimed that the Appellant/Defendant defamed them in the same series of Facebook posts.
[2] As a brief procedural background, Suits 4 and 15 were tried before the Sessions Court Judge who allowed the Plaintiffs' claims on 31 October 2022, gave various injunctive relief and ordered the Defendant to pay RM50,000.00 as general damages, RM50,000.00 as aggravated damages and RM50,000.00 as exemplary damages with costs of RM20,000.00 to the Plaintiffs.
[3] On the Defendant's appeal to the High Court, the Judgment of the Sessions Court was set aside on 20 July 2023. The High Court decided certain issues on that appeal, namely:
(a) that the claim by the 2nd Plaintiff in Suit 4 (namely the Society, sued through its officer) was dismissed with costs;
(b) no exemplary damages may be awarded
and remitted the case to the Sessions Court for reconsideration based on the following instructions:
(a) On the pleaded defamatory meanings/imputations were defamatory
The test of whether or not the published words are defamatory is the test of a hypothetical reasonable man
(b) On the defence of justification
For a defence of justification to succeed, the Defendant only need to prove the truth of main sting of the libel or gist of the libel as pleaded by the Plaintiff, rather than the exact words used. If the sting of the libel is justified, then immaterial allegations cannot be grounds for finding against the Defendant
(c) On the defence of qualified privilege
The trial judge is to reconsider and analyse the evidence before coming to a decision whether on facts the Defendant was entitled to succeed on the defence of qualified privilege
(d) On whether aggravated damages were correctly awarded The trial judge is to reconsider the evidence and make factual findings in accordance with the correct legal principles onaggravated damages before coming to a decision whether or not aggravated damages should be awarded over and above the general damages here
[4] Based on the instructions, it may be inferred that the pleaded defence of fair comment had been rejected by the High Court. There was no appeal to the Court of Appeal against that earlier High Court decision.
Preliminary Issue
[5] On 30 September 2024, the Sessions Court Judge gave a fresh Judgment that excluded the award of exemplary damages, but was otherwise identical to the Judgment given on 31 October 2022. The Sessions Court Judge declined to re-consider the matter, reiterated her findings and orders of 31 October 2022 and regarded the Court to be functus officio.
[6] A re-trial was not ordered when the case was remitted by the High Court for re-consideration by the Sessions Court with its audio-visual advantage intact having tried the case. However, the Sessions Court Jud
