Plaintiff established defamation through defamatory Facebook posts, while defendant failed to prove the truth of her statements. Damages awarded for reputational harm and exemplary damages due to the defendant's conduct.

Evrol Mariette Peters JC:

Introduction

[1] This is the plaintiff's claim ("this Claim") for damages against the defendant for alleged defamatory statements that the latter had posted on her Facebook account.

The Background Facts

[2] Although this is a dispute between a doula and a doctor, it must be underscored at the outset that the disagreement had nothing whatsoever to do with whether medically unsupervised home-births should be condoned or condemned, but rather if the doctor was justified in her statements regarding the doula.

[3] The plaintiff, known also as DoulaMas, is a doula, or birth companion, who not only offered personalised ante-natal and post-natal care advice relating to natural childbirth, she also conducted courses on how to handle the challenges pertaining to natural childbirth.

[4] The defendant is a medical doctor employed by the Ministry of Health Malaysia, and at the material time, was the owner of a Facebook account by the name of "Sakinah Sulong".

[5] On 4 February 2018, a baby born via a home water birth to one Norizatul Amira Kamsan ("PW2"), had died. As a result thereof, on 7 February, 8 February, and 12 February 2018, the following statements (collectively "the Postings") were published by the defendant:

7 February 2018

... Dalam kes yang baru berlaku, korang jangan tanya di mana dan siapa yang terlibat. Ibunya walaupun mulutnya kata redha, saya pasti malamnya pasti dikejar mimpi. Hatinya pasti diulit sepi. Doula yang dikaitkan dalam memberi ajaran mmg sah Doula Masyitah. Ini mmg kawasan operasi dia. Dia mungkin nak menafikan tapi jangan lupa, CCTV ada di hospital. Ada juga saksi yang Nampak dia di bilik saringan ibu bersama bapa bayi berkenaan pada malam tersebut. Betul ke dia cakap kat rumah?

8 February 2018

Saya memang MARAH hari ni!

Pertama, marah ngan #doulakeji tu.

Dah sah2 dia yang attend kes water birth kat rumah klien dia, dia boleh nafi pulak.

Habih kekawan/klien dia back up dia kononnya dia ni kena fitnah. Kononnya dia elok duduk kat rumah pada malam kejadian.

Aik, BERBOHONG tu kan berdosa

Dah terang2 u were there masa ambulans datang nak selamatkan baby tu.

U even followed them ke hospital. Jangan nak berdalih, ada ramai saksi kat hospital. CCTV pun ada. Entah2 solat Maghrib pun tak sempat kan?

Pelik la, u are heavily pregnant now. Tak takut ke Allah bayar cash to u. hasil perbuatan dan pembohongan u tu? Yakin sangat ke yg ur husband tu boleh conduct d delivery kali ni tanpa sebarang masalah walaupun dia dah berjaya sblm ni?

Remember, health staffs yg jaga area u will be reminded to be alert if ada unexpected emergency."

12 February 2018

A LIAR will have a hard time keeping the line between the truth and the lies.

Saya terpaksa berkongsi cerita kerana saya TIDAK MAHU seorang yang berimej Islamik, melakukan satu kesalahan dan sesedap rasa menafikannya tanpa rasa bersalah. Dia perlu DIHENTIKAN.

Gambar pertama saya terima pada 6hb di mana Masyitah memberitahu salah seorang bekas kliennya yang dia tidak berada di tempat berkenaan. Gambar kedua, yang sempat saya ss, kenyataan daripada group kliennya sehari selepas itu. Bukan sahaja dia menafikan dia ada di sana, tapi dia katanya tidak terlibat langsung kes ini sedangkan ibu ini memang sah salah seorang klien dia.

Tup tup, dalam kenyataan di fb pada 8hb, terang terang dia mengaku secara tidak langsung yang dia terlibat.

Untuk penyokong Masyitah, saya percaya anda semua bijak. Dan sama sekali takkan bersekongkol dengan kemungkaran. Hatta satu penipuan, apatah lagi yang melibatkan satu kematian... "

... Kes baby mati yg conducted by doula masyitah tu betul ke kejadian tu? Kwn saya kata kes tu pun xde..masyitah denied about this.. dia nk buat polis report kunun ...

Salam, ada org cam dia kat rumah patient ... yg pernah bersalin kat rumah tu ..."

[6] A letter of demand dated 10 July 2018 was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff's solicitors, but the defendant had failed to respond to the same. The Postings, however, were deleted sometime in August or September 2