Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

TORT- DEFAMATION – SLANDER

Recently, my colleague unreasonably accused me for stealing office equipment for personal use. He told everyone in my office. My other colleagues are now shunning me and my manager issued a warning letter to me. I feel so embarrassed, can I sue my colleague for defamation?

  • Yes, you can bring a legal action against the colleague on defamation. As he made the statement orally to other people other than the person concerned, it amounts to slander.
  • Slander is when a person makes a statement orally or in other non-permanent form that it can damage a good reputation of the person that the statement is concerned.

Q: What are the available defences for defamation?
There are a few defences available:
a. Qualified Privilege
     –   This defence can only be raised if the defamatory statement is made by a person who has interest, legal or duty to the person who made that statement. For example, report to the authorities or your HR Department etc are covered by the defence of qualified privilege.

b. Absolute Privilege
    –   Can only be relied on if the defamatory statement made is for official publication such as in judicial proceeding, parliamentary proceeding or police reports.

c. Fair Comment
    –   This defence is for a layman who honestly gave a view based on fact proved.
    –   To raise this defence:
        i. The comment made is on a matter of public interest.
       ii. The comment must be fair.
      iii. The comment must be based on fact proven to be true.
      iv. The defamatory words must be opposed to the statement of fact.

d. Reynold’s Privilege
    –   The defendant will have to prove that the statement made completely on matter of public interest.

e. Justification
    –   This is the most common defence used but the defendants must prove that the statements made are true or substantially true.

 

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us