Law of Torts – Defamation (UUUP 1123) – Comprehensive Lecture Notes

Interest Protected

  • Good name & reputation of individuals or entities
  • Reputation = what others believe to be the character of a person (or body)
  • Values at stake: INTEGRITY
  • TRUST
  • HONOUR
  • HONESTY
  • STATUS
  • Mere hurt feelings \neq compensable; must show reputation lowered
  • Jokes-understood-as-jokes are non-defamatory

Balancing of Rights

  • Two competing constitutional interests
  • Protection of reputation
  • Freedom of speech & expression under Federal Constitution Art.\ 10(1)(a)
  • Parliament may restrict free speech in the interests of security, public order, morality, contempt of court, defamation, etc. (Art. 10(2)(a))

Applicable Law

  • Civil defamation → Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia) – 20 sections; supplemented by common law
  • Criminal defamation → Penal Code

Definition of Defamation

  • Winfield: “Publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or make them shun/avoid him.”
  • Adopted in Malaysian cases e.g. Dato Musa Hitam v S.H. Alattas; Tun Rahman Ya’kub v BRE Sdn Bhd

Types of Defamation

Libel (permanent/visible)
  • e.g. newspapers, emails, cartoons, effigy
  • Actionable per se – no proof of loss needed
Slander (temporary/spoken/gesture)
  • Must prove actual damage (financially measurable) unless within statutory/common-law exceptions
Statutory Exceptions where slander is actionable per se
  • Slander of a woman (s. 4)
  • Slander affecting profession/business (s. 5)
  • Slander of title, goods, malicious falsehood (s. 6)
  • Imputation of contagious disease / crime (common law)

Who Can Sue?

Natural Person
  • May sue for libel/slander affecting reputation
Business or Commercial Organisation
  • Corporate reputation (restricted to trading reputation)
  • Mah Khuin Weng v Melawangi: company injured only “in its pockets.”
  • Borneo Post v Sarawak Press: no need to prove special damage in libel
Public Authorities & Government
  • Derbyshire principle (UK): local authority cannot sue for governing/administrative reputation absent financial loss
  • Malaysia:
    • Chong Chien Jen v Govt Sarawak: Fed/State Government can sue via Government Proceedings Act 1956 s.3
    • Lim Guan Eng v Ruslan Kassim: politicians sue in personal capacity; Chong limited to governments
Political Party
  • Ong Ka Chuan v Lim Lip Eng: parties lack suable reputation; individual members may sue; public interest in open criticism

Who Can Be Sued?

  • Author, editor, publisher, printer, website host—anyone participating in publication

Elements of Defamation (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Papagomo)

  1. Words are defamatory in nature
  2. Words refer to the plaintiff
  3. Publication to at least one third party
1 Words Defamatory in Nature

Tests (Gatley §):

  1. Lower estimation among right-thinking people?
  2. Cause others to shun/avoid?
  3. Expose to hatred, contempt or ridicule?
  • Lord Atkin (Sim v Stretch): lowers in eyes of society, arouses hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear
  • Control group: ordinary, reasonable, law-abiding citizens (Lau Chee Kuan; JB Jeyaretnam)
  • Two-stage approach (Wong Yoke Kong): meaning conveyed → whether defamatory

Natural & Ordinary Meaning

  • Determined using common sense & context (Chok Foo Choo v China Press)
  • Examples:
    • ‘Political frog’ merely descriptive (Lim Boo Chang v Ng Wei Aik)
    • Sexual slurs on website = “very obnoxious & obscene” (Anwar v Papagomo)

Innuendo

  • Words neutral on surface but defamatory by implication
  • False innuendo (reading between lines): Tolley v Fry
  • True innuendo (extrinsic facts): Cassidy v Daily Mirror
  • Mercier’s Fine Furnishing: headline implied competitors sold fake Italian furniture
2 Words Must Refer to P
  • Test: Would reasonable persons acquainted with P identify him/her? (ICM UK v NSTP)
  • Mistaken identity still actionable (Newstead; Hulton v Jones)
  • Group statements: actionable if words reasonably refer to every member (Knupffer v London Express)
3 Publication
  • Must reach at least one third party (Pakianathan v Jenni Ibrahim)
  • Includes print, broadcast, online, social media, retweets, reposts

Defences

1 Consent / Assent (volenti fit injuria)
  • Express or implied permission defeats claim
  • Onus on D (Normala Shamsuddin v Keluarga Comm)
2 Justification (Truth) – Absolute
  • If statement substantially true, D succeeds
  • Burden on D (S Pakianathan)
  • s. 8 Defamation Act: need not prove every detail if unproved parts do not materially injure P (e.g. Abdul Rahman Talib)
  • Salleh Ismail v Nurul Izzah: holistic, material particulars true
3 Fair Comment (s. 9)

Requirements:
(i) Comment, not fact
(ii) Based on true facts
(iii) Fair/without malice
(iv) On matter of public interest

  • Tests of fact vs comment (Lee Kuan Yew v Davies)
  • Malice defeats defence (Dr Chong Eng Leong v Harris Salleh)
  • Public-interest examples: ministers’ conduct, education quality, investment schemes
4 Privilege

Absolute (s. 11):

  • Judicial proceedings; parliamentary debates; contemporaneous court reports

Qualified Privilege

  • Statutory (s. 12–13, Schedule): fair & accurate media reports of Parliament, courts, public meetings; lost if malice
  • Common-law: duty–interest communications; rebutted by proof of malice (Hoe Thean Sun)
  • Multiple defendants: malice personal; doesn’t taint co-Ds (Lee Kuan Yew v Gwyn)
5 Unintentional Defamation (s. 7)
6 Innocent Dissemination (mere distributors)
7 Immunity (e.g. UN rapporteur – Param Cumaraswamy)
8 Apology (prompt, conspicuous)

Distinction: Libel vs Slander

  • Form: permanent vs transient
  • Actionability: libel per se; slander requires damage unless within statutory/common-law presumptions
  • Criminality: historically, libel sometimes criminal; slander not

Key Case Illustrations

  • Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Papagomo – sexual slurs, RM 200,000 damages
  • Jason Lo v The Star – three articles implied dishonourable character; won RM200,000
  • Shuib v John Dihani (2024) – social-media Freemason allegation; comedian warns “do not normalise defamation”
  • Mahfuz Omar v Sanusi – political insult: “Talkinkan saja jiwamu…”; court assessed ordinary meaning

Practical Scenarios

  1. Honest TikTok food review v shop owner’s backlash – is it fair comment or defamatory?
  2. Radio + newspaper case (Mat Hijau): potential liability of journalist (lack of verification) & publisher (letters column) – analyse elements & defences (qualified privilege? fair comment? innocent dissemination?).

Ethical / Professional Context

  • Malaysian Press Institute Code of Ethics (1989): paramount duty to report truth; respect public’s right to be informed
  • Journalists must verify facts, give chance of reply, observe balance between free speech & reputation

Revision Questions

  • Identify & explain the three elements of defamation with authorities.
  • Contrast libel & slander; list statutory exceptions to damage rule.
  • Outline the defence of justification and statutory provision affecting multiple allegations.
  • Give four situations where absolute privilege applies.