Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

TORT – DEFAMATION

What is Defamation?
When there is a publication of a statement that lowers the reputation of another person.

How many types of defamation and what are they?

Two
– Libel
– Slander

What is Libel?

  • Defamatory statement in a permanent form.
  • E.g. e-mail, articles, Facebook posts, WhatsApp messages.

What is Slander?
Defamatory statement in a temporary form.
E.g. spoken words.

Methods of interpreting the words in an allegedly defamatory statement?
– By their natural and ordinary meaning
– By innuendo

What is Innuendo?

Ordinary words would have a special meaning to those with special background.
E.g. “Mr. A is enjoying his honeymoon with Mrs. X, who he married two weeks ago” may not appear to be defamatory in its ordinary meaning. However, if Mr. A is in fact married to someone other than Mrs. X, then the statement about Mr. A could be defamatory by way of innuendo to those who know the true story about Mr. A.

Elements of Defamation

  1. The words are defamatory; and
  2. The words refer to the plaintiff, and
  3. That the words have been published.

What are the Defences for Defamation?

  1. Justification
    This defence can be raised if the defendant can prove that the published statement was actually true.
  2. Unintentional Defamation
    The Defendant unintentionally or innocently publishes defamatory material of another person.
    E.g. A reporter writes what is alleged to be defamatory article in a magazine.

  3. Fair Comment
    The statement made is an honest expression of an opinion about a matter of public interest.

Factors that Taken into Account by Court in Assessing Damages

  • The seriousness of the libel
  • The defendant’s behaviour from the time of the libel to the time judgment is given
  • Any malice on the part of the Defendant

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us