JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] This is another defamation suit brought by an aggrieved party for this Court's determination. Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, the respondent before this Court, was the plaintiff at the High Court and Seema Elizabeth Isoy, the appellant, was the defendant. After a full trial before the High Court, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. However, the plaintiff succeeded in his appeal at the Court of Appeal where the decision of the High Court was set aside and the plaintiff's claim was allowed. The plaintiff was awarded damages of RM100,000.00. Hence, the present appeal.

[2] The appeal before us, essentially, centers on the effect of a half-truth statement in defamation law in Malaysia, particularly whether a half-truth statement constitutes a false statement. On 28 August 2023, upon the appellant's application for leave to appeal, this Court granted the following questions:

Question 1

Are Malaysian Courts jurisdictionally competent to rely on foreign common law as far as it relates to the doctrine of 'half-truth' in deciding whether a statement is defamatory or otherwise when the provision of s 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956 prohibits this reliance in circumstances where local statutory provisions provide a remedy as decided in the case of ; [2019] 3 MLJ 300; [2019] 1 CLJ 329; [2018] 8 AMR 317?

Question 2

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, would the provisions of:

(i) Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 sufficiently provides a basis for the defence of justification in a situation where the impugned statement is 'substantially true'? and/or

(ii) Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 sufficiently provides a basis for the defence of fair comment in a situation where the impugned statement is based on true matters?

Question 3

If the second question is answered in the affirmative:

(i) Would a 'substantially true' statement mentioning criminal charges as having been instituted against a plaintiff in a defamation suit be protected by the provision of s 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 despite the absence of a mention that the plaintiff was eventually acquitted of those charges? and/ or

(ii) Would a true statement mentioning criminal charges as having been instituted against a plaintiff in a defamation suit be protected by the provision of s 9 of the Defamation Act 1957 despite the absence of a mention that the plaintiff was eventually acquitted of those charges?

Question 4

Whether the doctrine of 'half-truth' applicable in the threshold test for defamation which the 2-step process is affirmed by the Federal Court in ; [2019] 3 MLJ 300; [2019] 1 CLJ 329; [2018] 8 AMR 317?

The Background Facts

[3] Seema Elizabeth Isoy, the appellant, is the registered owner of a unit in Waldorf & Windsor Tower Serviced Apartments (W&W) which was developed by Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd ("Mayland"). She was also a committee or sub-committee member of the W&W Management Corporation ("MC"). The appellant together with 55 other persons were in the W&W Whatsapp Group, consisting of unit owners or their representatives.

[4] Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong, the respondent, is a businessman and the Chairman and founder of Mayland.

[5] There were several legal disputes in Court involving Mayland and W&W and in one of the cases, the High Court decided that Mayland had defrauded and/or made a false representation to W&W owners in respect of a common area in W&W. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and Mayland application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal was not granted by the Federal Court.

[6] On 17 August 2017, the appellant sent a text message ("impugned statement") to the W&W Whatsapp Group which reads:

"In order for owners to know all the facts, I believe we have to step back even more and ask "who is Mayland?"

Mayland is the CHIU family.

So who is this Chiu family?

Let's have a very brief look at the publicly known facts about his family:

- The Chiu family is an extremely rich and suc