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

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

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 »
zh_TW简体中文
× 我能怎样帮你呢?