TORT LAW- DEFAMATION- FAIR COMMENT

Upon viewing a report, Mr. A (a politician) had made a statement about Mr. C that he had used the public funds for a national cattle farming project to purchase three units of houses. Mr. C sued Mr. A on the basis that the defamatory statement made had tarnished his reputation and character. Can Mr. C sue Mr. A on the grounds of defamation?

Q: What is defamation?

A: Defamation is a statement made by a person that tarnishes a person’s reputation. It can be made in writing (considered “libel”) or orally (considered “slander”).

Q: Must Mr. C incur financial losses before he can sue Mr. A?

A: No, he can sue for damages as long as his reputation is tarnished.

Q: Is there any defence to an action for defamation?

A: If Mr. A has genuinely given a view on a fact proven to be true, he can then raise the defence to his statement made, that is, he has only made a “fair comment” rather than a defamatory statement.

Q: What is a “fair comment”?

A: A “fair comment” is a comment given based on proven fact.

Three elements of a “fair comment”:

  • The comment was on a matter of public interest;
  • The comment was based on facts; and
  • The comment was one which a normal person would have honestly made on the facts proved.

Q: Is there a cap to compensation on defamation?

A: There is no known cap. The court will look at the facts and the following factors to decide how much the compensation would be:

  • The seriousness of the content of the statement;
  • Mode of publication;
  • Nature of the statement;
  • The plaintiff’s current standing;
  • Whether the defendant has received any benefit from making such statements;
  • Whether the defendant has refused to apologise; and
  • What has the defendant done for the period of time between the time he made the defamatory statement and the court finally decides the case.

Q: How long is the limitation period to file a claim for defamation?

A: For West Malaysia, the limitation period is 6 years from the date the defendant published the defamatory statement.

Recent Post

NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION OF ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION

Explore the delicate balance between court proceedings and arbitration in our latest legal update, focusing on a pivotal case where a request to file a defense leads to a significant legal debate on the appropriate forum for dispute resolution. Gain insights from key cases that define when to push for arbitration over litigation.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – REDEFINING SPOUSAL SUPPORT – FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

A divorce case involving two insurance agents raises crucial questions about spousal maintenance for financially independent women and their shared responsibility in child support. The court will assess each party’s financial capacity and contributions, considering modern principles of gender equality and the ‘means and needs’ test under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »

TIME’S UP: NAVIGATING THE 12-YEAR LIMITATION

In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us