Back
2012 MarsdenLR 1842
HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DATO' VT SINGHAM, J
Eonmetall Industries Sdn Bhd – Plaintiff
Versus
Lai Chin Yang & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO 22NCVC-513-2011
Ung Chirt Kye (Phee, Chen & Ung) for the plaintiff.
Cindy Goh Joo Seong (Brian Foong Mun Loong & Wong Jin En with her) (Cheang & Ariff) for the defendants.
The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged defamatory statements and their defamatory nature, leading to dismissal of the claim, whereas defendants were protected by qualified privilege.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act, 1957 - Defamatory statements - The plaintiffs claimed defamation based on statements made by the first defendant at meetings regarding the plaintiffs' qualification as a CRC mill and other business assertions - Defendants denied statements were made, asserting statutory defences of qualified privilege, fair comment, and justification. (Paras 1-3, 5-15, 20-24)
(B) Burden of Proof - Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish that the statements were made as alleged and were defamatory in nature - The court found that the plaintiff failed to substantiate its claim with contemporaneous evidence. (Paras 12, 15-19)
(C) Qualified Privilege - The court recognized the context of the statements as a matter of public interest and thus fell under the protection of qualified privilege. (Para 21)
(D) Vicarious Liability - The defendants were not held vicariously liable as the first defendant's statements were not authorized by the second defendant. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
The case revolves around alleged defamatory statements made by the first defendant regarding the plaintiffs' business reputation in meetings attended by industry stakeholders, with the plaintiffs claiming damages of RM 10,000,000. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove that the statements were made by the first defendant, and even if made, they did not refer to the plaintiff in a defamatory manner. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs. (Paras 24-27)
Issues: The court addressed issues including the veracity of the statements, whether they were defamatory, and if statutory defences applied. (Paras 5, 11-12, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof, and the statements were protected under qualified privilege as they concerned matters of industry significance. (Paras 20-24)
Result: Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; defendants' counter claim also dismissed with costs.
Key Points: - The plaintiff bears the burden to prove defamatory statements were made and are defamatory (!) (!) . - The defense is protected by qualified privilege where the matter is of public interest and the defendant had a proper interest (!) (!) . - No vicarious liability as the first defendant’s statements were not authorized by the second defendant (!) (!) .
What is the burden of proof for defamation claims?
What are the grounds for qualified privilege defense?
Is the defendant vicariously liable for the alleged defamatory statements?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of defamation and context. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' arguments and defenses. (Para 2 , 9 , 11) |
| 3. jurisdictional issues and findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 25) |
| 4. court's reasoning on evidence and defamation. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGEMENT
[1]The plaintiffs claim against the defendants is for defamation basedon two statements, allegedly made by the first defendant during a dialogue on 20.10.2009 and at a meeting on 23.10.2009 respectively organised by the Malaysian Iron and Steel Industry Federation (MISIF) where the representatives from the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) were present.
The alleged defamatory statement made by the first defendant on 20.10.2009 as pleaded in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim is as follows:-
"Eonmetall failed to attend a meeting called by MITI and Eonmetall while agreed to allow Megasteel to conduct technical audit of its plant did not handle the visit well and had failed to take Megasteel's officers around the plant to show their facilities. We suspect that Eonmetall does not really qualify as CRC Mill as the company does not have P & O facilities"
"I had communicated with Dato' Goh Cheng Huat during last quarter and one contract was still defaulted and all these while, Eonmetall had not bought a single ton from Megasteel"
The alleged defamatory statement made by the first defendant on 23.10.2009 as pleaded in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim is as follows:-
"There is a need to define what is CRC mill as we are suspicious that one CRC mill was not a genuine mill in that the said mill would only be producing second grade material. We are reluctant to supply to this company"
[2] By the Amended Statement of Defence and Counter Claim dated14.9.2011 (Enclosure 25), the defendants have inter alia, denied the plaintiffs claim. The defendants have also pleaded that the statement allegedly made by the first defendant on 20.10.2009 and on 23.10.2009 respectively were not defamatory and did not make any reference to the plaintiff and did not amount to slander or defamation and did not make any reference to the plaintiff. Further, and in the alternative, the defendants have also pleaded the statutory defences, namely, the defence of qualified privilege, fair comment and justification. The defendants have further pleaded that the plaintiffs claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and amounts to the tort of abuse of the process of the court. In addition to the defences, the defendants have also included a counter claim and inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff had acted mala fide and has a collateral purpose in filing the present suit against the defendants with the view to further their private interest and that the plaintiffs claim is not for a genuine purpose of obtaining the reliefs claimed but for a collateral purpose. Consequently, the defendants have counter-claimed for general damages, aggravated and/or exemplary damages, interest and costs on the ground that the plaintiffs act had caused losses, damage and prejudice to the defendants.
[3] The Statement of Agreed Facts (plaintiffs claim) is as follows :-
1 Defendan pertama pada sebarang masa yang material adalah warganegara Malaysia dan merupakan seorang Penguins bagi defendan kedua pada masa yang material.
2 Defendan kedua adalah sebuah syarikat dan juga adalah satu kilang yang terlibat dalam industry besi (steel industry) dan adalah kilang tunggal di Malaysia yang keluarkan produk besi "Hot Rolled Coils".
3 Pada 20.10.2009 Malaysia Steel Sheet Coaters Group/Cold Rollers bersama dengan defendan kedua telah mengadakan satu mesyuarat dengan Lembaga Kemajuan Perindustrian Malaysia (Malaysia Industrial Development Authority [MIDA]) dan mesyuarat itu juga disertai oleh wakil-wakil dari Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (Ministry of International Trade and Industry [MITI]), Kementerian Kewangan (Ministry of Finance [MOF]) dan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (Royal Malaysian Custom (RMC)).
4 Yeo
