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

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