CHIN CHOON V. CHUA JUI MENG COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02-372-2000]GOPAL SRI RAM JCA , ABDUL KADIR SULAIMAN JCA , NIK HASHIM JCA14 OCTOBER 2004[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Civil Suit No: S2-22-503-1994] Reported by WA SharifJUDGMENT Gopal Sri Ram JCA:The appellant is an advocate and solicitor. He was the second defendant in the court below. This is his appeal against the award of damages made against him in respect of the libel admittedly committed by him upon the respondent. The trial judge awarded a total sum of RM1,500,000 made up of RM500,000 as compensatory damages, RM500,000 as aggravated damages and a further RM500,000 as exemplary damages. The appellant complains that these awards are excessive.At the date of publication of the admitted libel, the respondent was the Deputy Minister for International Trade and Industry. The appellant made a charge against the respondent that was of the gravest nature. He alleged that the respondent had acted corruptly in the discharge of his duties. This charge was made at a press conference called at the appellant's behest. The story was carried by two newspapers of the Chinese vernacular. Later, the appellant repeated the defamatory words to a very limited audience _ three or four journalists _ outside the office of the Anti Corruption Agency where he had gone to lodge a report. He said that he had & boxes of evidence & against the respondent. As it turned out, there was no such evidence. Further, the appellant who had taken the plea of justification abandoned it in the course of the trial. We would add that there is evidence to show that the appellant was acting for a client who was facing a possible charge of extortion and had embarked upon his chosen course of action against the respondent for the purpose of demonstrating to the world at large that he was a fearless advocate who was prepared to take on anyone irrespective of his standing.When this appeal was called on for argument this Monday past, 11 October 2004, this court formed the view that the quantum of damages under all three heads was excessive having regard to the recent trend of awards in defamation cases. Accordingly, counsel for the respondent was called upon to show why the appeal should not be allowed and the damages reduced. Learned counsel for the respondent then drew our attention to the matters set out in para. 2 of this judgment as grounds that justified the awards in this case. He also submitted that the evidential materials relied on by the respondent were sufficiently weighty, on the very special facts of this case, to justify the very large awards made by the High Court.Attention was called to Liew Yew Tiam v. Cheah Cheng Hoc [2001] 2 CLJ 385 CA (refd), where this court held that the width or extent of a publication is always a relevant consideration when assessing compensatory damages. Counsel argued that since in that case damages of RM100,000 were awarded when the publication was only to two persons, the award of RM500,000 was not manifestly excessive here because the publication was to two newspapers, namely, China Press and Shin Min Daily News. According to the evidence, the former has a very large daily circulation while the latter has only a circulation of about 2000 copies per day. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the article in the China Press was not disparaging in any way of the respondent and that only that in the Shin Min was. He then argued that only nominal damages should be awarded.In Defamation Law, Procedure & Practice by Price & Duodu (3rd edition, para 20-04 at p. 208) the learned authors set out the several factors that a court must take into account in assessing compensatory damages. This is what they say:The amount of damages awarded in respect of vindication and injury to reputation and feelings depends on a number of factors: 1. The gravity of the allegation.2. The size and influence of the circulation.3. The effect of the pu