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

BROAD INTERPRETATION OF ‘SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION’ APPLIES YORK-ANTWERP RULES 2016 GOVERNING GENERAL AVERAGE IN STAR AXE I LLC V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE

In Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342, the court determined that the phrase “any subsequent modification” in the bills of lading extended to the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, not just amendments to the 1994 version. This broad interpretation significantly impacted the general average adjustments, applying the more modern rules outlined in the YAR 2016. The decision emphasize the importance of clear contract language when referring to evolving sets of industry rules, as it directly influences the liabilities and cost-sharing in maritime incidents.

Read More »

COURT UPHOLDS RECAP EMAIL AS BINDING CONTRACT IN MARITIME DISPUTE: PORALU MARINE V MV DIJKSGRACHT

In the recent case of Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht [2023], the Federal Court of Australia Full Court (FCAFC) ruled that a second recap email, summarizing key terms from negotiations, constituted the binding contract of carriage rather than the subsequent booking note. The court found that the recap email reflected the final agreement between the parties, while the booking note attempted to introduce new terms, including liability limits, which were not mutually agreed upon. This decision emphasizes the importance of recap emails in maritime contracts and reinforces the application of the Hague-Visby Rules in such cases.

Read More »

ONE-YEAR TIME BAR FOR MISDELIVERY CLAIMS REINFORCED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN FIMBANK PLC V KCH SHIPPING CO LTD (THE GIANT ACE) [2024]

In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.

Read More »

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF FRAUDULENT VESSEL REGISTRATION: LESSONS FROM COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY V OSTA FLEET

In Cosco Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd, the court examined a vessel registration dispute involving allegations of fraudulent documentation. The Plaintiffs argued that Osta Fleet fraudulently registered the vessel “Dalian Developer” using a falsified Builder’s Certificate. The court’s forensic analysis revealed inconsistencies in the document, ultimately deeming the registration invalid under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The case underscores the importance of due diligence and legal safeguards in vessel registration processes.

Read More »

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

In a recent English Court of Appeal decision, the issue of misdelivery without the presentation of the original bill of lading was brought into focus. The court examined the shipowner’s delivery of cargo without presentation of the bill of lading and the subsequent endorsement to UniCredit Bank. Although a breach was found, the claim was dismissed on causation grounds, as the bank had knowledge of and implicitly authorized the delivery. This case emphasizes the crucial role of bill of lading in maritime transactions.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us