DEFAMATION

DEFAMATION

DEFINITION ELEMENTS
-Libel a.p.s.
1. Words – defamatory DEFENCES
-Slander n.a.p.s 2. Words- refer to Pf
(exceptions where 3. Words - published
it is a.p.s)
 DEFINITION
• No proper definition
• Not defined in the Malaysian Defamation
Act 1957
• Definition – from judgments
 DEFAMATION CAN BE DEFINED
AS
• The publication of a statement
which reflects on a person’s
reputation and tends to lower
him in the estimation of the right
thinking members of society
generally or tends to make them
shun or avoid him
WORDS
 1. Words always controversy
3. Must lower reputation
In defamation suit Mohd Azwan Ali v Sis. Tel (M)
Lewis v Daily Telegraph (HOL) – Ogy said in Melodi “Kau ni macam
Df published ‘Officer of the city of AzwanAli lah, menangis sebab Ziana Zain
London fraud Squad were investigating Kahwin” – court held these were words
the Pf”s Co’ said in jest for light entertainment – not
Pf said words Defamatory that co was Defamatory
corrupt but - Ct said not defamatory Datuk Syed Kechik v
Coz -Ordinary people would wait for the Datuk Yeh Pao Tzu (facts ?)
outcome of the enquiry. Pf was drawn as the horse of
The chairman
4. Knowledge of Defendant, of the facts
2. If Words uttered as that make the words
Defamatory is immaterial
mere abuse, anger, heat
Of the moment it will not be Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper
Regarded as defamatory Df paper published engagement of Mr A to Ms B
was recently announced. Mrs A said this was
C. Sivananthan v. Abdullah Imputation that she lived in immoral cohabitation
with her husband and suferred damage.
Although article published in good faith,
Df liable
• A Defamatory statement may be;

• LIBEL

• or

• SLANDER
 LIBEL
• Defamation in a permanent form, usually
visible to the eye
• Eg: e-mail, letters, pictures, statues,
effigies
• S. 2 Defamation Act, interpretation
• Words ….visual images, gestures ….
• Broadcasting…..

• S. 3 Defamation Act – broadcasting shall

be treated as publication in a permanent
form (television and radio)
 Libel

• ACTIONABLE PER SE
• No need to prove actual
damage
• Assumed that damage will
result
 SLANDER
• Defamation in a temporary form.

• Eg: Spoken words or gestures

 SLANDER
• GENERAL RULE -
• NOT ACTIONABLE PER SE
• Pf has to prove:
• Actual damage which is financial loss
• The damage is the natural and
foreseeable result of the Df’s words
• Or Direct result of the Df’s words
• Unlike LIBEL, SLANDER is difficult to
prove (S. 2 DA also applies to slander)
 Exception to the general rule of
SLANDER
• Meaning:
• Slander can be ACTIONABLE PER SE in
5 situations:

• 1. IMPUTATION OF THE UNCHASTITY

OF A WOMAN
• S. 4 Defamation Act
• Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Leng
• Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Ling
• Resp called appl a prostitue and that she charged
RM50 for each time
• Allegations made in presence of a third party
• Slander was established – no need to prove special
damage
• [But did the third party understand mandarin?
• No
• It was not published (Communicated)
• Did not amount to Defamation]
• 2. IMPUTATION OF UNFITNESS IN ANY
OFFICE, PROFESSION…

• S. 5 Defamation Act
• Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Leng

• Wan Abdul Rashid v S. Subramaniam

• Luk Kai Lam
• Court held that slander was against her as
a woman and not her profession (nurse)
• Wan Abdul Rashid v S Subramaniam
• Df (lawyer) defamed Registrar of the Sessions
Court, in presence of members of court staff and
public;
• “Oh that corrupted fellow. He needs to be taught
a lesson. I am going to get the BSN and then he
would know. I am going to get the whole lot of
you fellows because you fellow are nothing but
corrupted buggers right from the Registrar.”
• Held :
• Df liable
• “Pf as the Registrar of Sessions Court holds
an office of trust in which the public must
have confidence ….
…To impute corruption against any officer of
the court without evidence to support it is in
my opinion a wrongful act to be strongly
deprecated.”
• 3. IMPUTATION TO TITLE, GOODS OR
OTHER MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD

• S. 6 Defamation Act
• No need to prove special damage when
words are calculated to cause pecuniary
damage .. Usually for trade / business
• 4. IMPUTATION OF DISEASE
• Contagious / infectious disease
• Eg: VD, AIDS

• 5. IMPUTATION OF CRIME
• Serious crime – murder, rape
• That Attracts death penalty, whipping,
imprisonment
• Idea : Public will tend to shun /avoid him
• C. Sivananthan v Abdullah
• C Sivananthan v Dato Hj Abdul Rahman
• Df called Pf , ‘cheat, dishonest and liar’
• Held : Action for Defamation failed
• 1. Imputation of crime was not a serious
one
• 2. It becomes a tort “not actionable per se”
– Pf will need to prove actual damage
 ELEMENTS
• Pf must prove 3 elements; ( all 3)

• 1. The words are defamatory

• 2. The words refer to the Pf
• 3. The words must be published
 1. The words are defamatory
• What are defamatory words?

• Words that tend to lower the reputation of

the Pf in the minds of the right thinking
members of society so that the Pf is
avoided, shunned or ridiculed (TEST)
• Read: Syed Husain Ali v Sykt Perchetakan
Utusan Melayu (contains the test)
 Ctd’ 1st ELEMENT
• Words may be defamatory in 3 ways;

• 1. In its natural and ordinary meaning

• 2. by way of innuendo
• 3. by way of juxtaposition
• 1. Natural and ordinary meaning
• The words by themselves, as understood by
men of ordinary intelligence must have the
tendency to make them look down on the Pf.
• Eg: Abu Jahal,
• adulterous,
• prostitute,
• Ugly
• There is no hidden meaning
• 2. Innuendo

• A remark that suggest something

unpleasant / dissapproving without saying
it directly.
• There is a Secondary meaning behind the
said word, that will not arise from the literal
meaning of the words
 2 types of innuendo;
• 1. False Innuendo • 2. True innuendo
• When the hidden • When the hidden
meaning is obvious meaning is really hidden

• Pf need not prove • Must plead additional

additional evidence to evidence to satisfy the
prove it was defamatory court that the words were
defamatory
• (explain the hidden
meaning)
 Ctd’
Pf relying on a True Innuendo must prove;
• 1. there exists external facts, when combined
with the defendants words, it becomes
defamatory
• 2. These facts were known to one or more
persons to whom the defendant’s words have
been published
• 3. the knowledge of these facts may be
defamatory to the Pf in the eyes of those who
have privy to the special facts.
 Ctd’ - cases
• 1. False Innuendo • 2. True Innuendo
• Tolley v Fry
• Syed Husin Ali
• Ayob bin Saud
• Lee Kuan Yew v. J.B
Jeyaratnam
 Cases : False Innuendo
• Ayob bin Saud v TS Sambanthamurthi
• Pf – surveyor. He charged bill to Df for survey
works RM 4480
• Df – Disgusted, wrote letter to C
“ I am surprised that a Chinese Surveyor has
charged RM1450, whereas a bumiputra asks
for RM 4480”
• Pf said this was a false innuendo (hidden
meaning) that he was a cheat.
• Held:
• It was not a false innuendo
• It merely conveyed that the Pf’s charges
were excessive
• Lee Kuan Yew v JB Jeyaratnam
• During election rally Df spoke of the Pf
• “I’m not very good in the management of my own
personal fortunes but Mr. Lee Kuan Yew has
managed his personal fortunes very well. He is
the PM of Singapore. His wife is the senior
partner of Lee& Lee and his brother is director of
several companies I wouldn’t know how to
manage my own personal affairs if I were the PM”
• Held:
• This was a false innuendo
• No need to bring extra evidence to prove
that the words were defamatory
• The words in their N&O meaning implied
that the PM had gained personal financial
advantage from his post as PM
• Defamation established
 Case : True Innuendo
• Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd
• Pf – amateur golfer
• Df – Chocolate manufacturer
• Df advertised in newspaper – caricature of Pf
playing golf with chocolate bar sticking out of
pocket
• Advertisement trying to imply that the quality of
chocolate was as good as the Pf’s performance
• Pf claimed for libel.
• The words of the picture were not clear on
the face of it
• The innuendo was that Pf had received
payment for the advertisement and therefore
sold his status as an amateur golfer
therefore flouting the rules of his amateur
status
• Held : the words were a true innuendo, Pf
succeeded in his claim
 Ctd’
Pf relying on a True Innuendo must prove;
• 1. there exists external facts, when combined
with the defendants words, it becomes
defamatory
• 2. These facts were known to one or more
persons to whom the defendant’s words have
been published
• 3. the knowledge of these facts may be
defamatory to the Pf in the eyes of those who
have privy to the special facts.
• If Pf alleges that the words are a true
innuendo, he is actually admitting that the
words are not defamatory in its N&O
meaning.
• 3. Words may be defamatory by way of
Juxtaposition

• Juxtapose - to place side by side or close

together
• Involves visual effects, such as effigies or
placing the Pf’s photograph in a pile of
wanted criminals
 Case
• Monson v Tussauds Ltd
• Pf was accused of committing murder and
was released because it was not proven
• Df – made a wax model of the Pf and put
the statue with the other criminals in the
‘Chamber of Horrors
• Df – liable for Defamation
 2nd ELEMENT

• THE WORDS MUST

REFER TO THE PLAINTIFF
 Cases
• E. Hulton & Co. v Jones
• Humorous fiction written on the morals of
Artemis Jones, a churchwarden in Peckham
• Intended to be purely fictitious
• However, there was a barrister by that name
• All his friends thought it was him ( he was not
even staying at Peckham)
• Defamation established
• Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd
• Df Newspaper stated
• “Harold Newstead, 30 year old, Camberwell
man, was punished for bigamy”
• However, there were 2 people by same name
• Pf was Harold Cecil Newstead, in 30’s, a
hairdresser, others thought it was him
• Absence of intention will not affect liability
• Df liable
• Morgan v. Odham Press Ltd
• No mention of name
• (Pf) journalist, interviewed a kennel girl who
helped a gang to dope dogs. Then took her to
his flat to protect her.
• Df reporter heard the rumours, and published
that the girl was kidnapped by the gang and kept
at a house in Finchley
• What happens when people see the girl with the
journalist Pf?
• They thought that the Pf was a gang
members
• External factors had pointed to (referred
to) the Pf as a gang member and this
constituted defamation
 Unintentional Defamation /
Offer of Amends
• S. 7 Defamation Act (read)
• Provides a procedure where the defendant
may avoid liability to pay damages for
unintentional defamation. He must publish
a reasonable correction and apology and
pay the Pf’s cost and expenses incurred
as a consequences of the publication
• Apology not a full defence
 Cases
• Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v
Hj. Hassan bin Hamzah

• Normala Samsuddin v Keluarga

Communication s/b
• (1999) 2 MLJ 654
• (2006) appeal
Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun
v Hj. Hassan bin Hamzah

• Pf – chief exec officer of Berjaya group

• Df – 7 altogether, publisher of the
‘Malaysian Industry’ magazine
• It was published that;
• He wanted to use the press for his biz
advantage
• He established the sun but he was not
getting contracts from the ministers
 Ctd’
• He scolded the editors not to critisize his friends
• Printed “Vincent Tan warns journalists”
• The 7th Df entered ‘innocent publication’ but
failed
• 1. it clearly referred to Pf
• 2.He did not make an offer of amends according
to s. 7(2)
• Ct awarded 10 mil in damages- apportioned
Normala Samsuddin v Keluarga
Communications s/b 1999
• Mingguan Wanita (magazine) printed ‘Mala
tebus talak 3 juta’
• Ct said; in its N&O meaning / innuendo, it
meant that Pf was a prsn who had attached
a price tag to her marriage and that for a
payment she bought off her marriage
• This connoted a woman of loose character
and lax morals
 Ctd’
• Aggravated damages was approved by the
court as the Df had repeated the libel in 4
other magazines after Pf’s complaint.
• Therefore, Df did not mean his apology
• Ct awarded 100K – general damages and
100K aggravated damages
• (unfortunately exemplary damages not
pleaded) - cld have been awarded as it was
calculated to make profits
 Ctd’
• Appeal of 2006
• Df not liable
• Read the judgment
 Defamation of a class
• General Rule: Df will not be liable unless
there is a direct reference to the Pf or
certain individuals in a particular class or
group.
• Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper
Ltd
• Tengku Jaafar bin Tengku Ahmad v
Karpal Singh
 Knuppfer v London Express
Newspaper (1944)
• Df newspaper reported unethical activities of
the Young Russian Party in France and USA.
• Pf, leader of the British branch failed in his
action as the words did not refer only to him
but thousands of people in the party
• General sttms like ‘lawyers are liars’ – not
referring to any ptcl lawyer but if discussing 1
prsn and then say ‘all lawyers are liars’, it is
actually referring to him
 Tengku Jaafar bin Tengku
Ahmad v Karpal Singh 1993
• Df stated that the word ‘any person’ in the ISA
includes the “Raja” (Malay ruler of the state) who
could also be detained under the Act for being a
threat to national security
• Berita Harian reported
• Pf said words were defamatory to Rulers and
malays indirectly
• Ct said there was nothing to show that the word
referred to the Pf.
• However if the words refer to a limited
class of 2/3 people, then it would refer to
the Pf – Foxcroft v Lacey (1613) Hob 89
 3RD ELEMENT

• THE WORDS MUST

BE PUBLISHED
• Publication means the communication of
words to at least 1 person other than the
person defamed
• Publication may be in “words” and in
writing (remember s. 2)
 1. Where does publication take
place
• Involving jurisdiction of the court

• Ying Cheng Ang v Taro Imanaka (letter)

• Dow Jones v Jameel (internet)
• Dow Jones v Gutnick
• The moment the material is downloaded and read
publication is satisfied. The case should be heard in the
country it is downloaded
 2. What if the publication was not meant to
be read by a third party but was
• Huth v Huth
• The inquisitive butler opened an unsealed letter
and read it.
• Held: no publication since it was not part of the
butler’s duty.

• Question : Should the defendant have

reasonably foreseen the possibility that a
third party might read it.
 3. If the defamatory words were not intelligible or
could not be understood by the 3rd party

• Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Leng

• There would be no publication

• -words spoken in a foreign language are
not understood by a third party.
 4. Publication between husband
and wife
• If husband states a defamatory statement to his wife
regarding another person, it is not considered as
defamation
• But if a person says to one spouse something
defamatory about the other spouse, there is
publication.
• Theaker v Richardson
• Husband read letter (defamatory note) sent to his wife
by Pf, thinking it was a regarding election. Held
publication was foreseeable in the circumstances .
Defamation established
 5. Repetition and republication
• If words are copied or repeated, a new cause of
action arises. For second and other publications
all defendants may be sued
• Chua Jui Meng v Hoo Kok Wing
1. Df wrote letter to A.C.A
2. Released in press statement
3. 2 newspapers re-published
Held : All liable
 6. Mere Distributor
• Newsagents, libraries, book shop owners, book
sellers
• They would also be liable;
• But they have good defence (innocent
dissemination) , if can prove
• 1. they were innocent of any libel contained in
the work
• 2. there was nothing in the work for them to
assume there was libel.
 7. Printers
• Mirzan Mahathir v Star Papyrus s/b

• Printers usually sign a promise of

indemnity from the publisher
 DEFENCES
• Justification
• Fair Comment
• Absolute Privilege
• Qualified Privilege
• Apology
• License
 DEFENCES
• DEFENCES • IF DONE WITH
MALICE
• Justification • Still good defence

• Fair Comment • Defence will fail

• Absolute Privilege • Still good defence

• Qualified Privilege • Defence will fail

 1. JUSTIFICATION
• Full defence
• Defence used when the words are true
• Pf will have no protection
• BOP on defendant to prove his allegation
was true
• S. 8 Defamation Act 1957
• Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam
• Mirzan Mahathir v Star Papyrus
 s. 8 Defamation Act
• For example, you write an article saying the CEO of a
well-known company sexually harassed, assaulted and
raped an employee in 2008.
• In fact, the CEO was found guilty of sexual assault and
rape but not sexual harassment and sues you for
defamation.
• You could defend your statement through S.8
Defamation Act ; saying the CEO sexually harassed an
employee doesn’t harm their reputation any further,
considering your other statements about the sexual
assault and rape convictions are true.
 Abdul Rahman Talib v Seenivasagam
[1965] 2 MLJ 66,
Df made 2 charges against Pf:
(a) P had as a minister improperly received various sums of
money; and
(b) that the plaintiff had received various favours.

Df successfully proved the 2nd charge, i.e., receipt of

favours by Pf but not the first charge
Held:
Df could rely on the defence of justification although
they had failed to prove the truth of the first charge that
Pf had received sums of money, because not being able
to prove the first charge did not materially injure Pf’s
reputation, having regard to the truth of the second
charge.
Mirzan Mahathir v Star Papyrus
• The printer first stated they had no ill
will/malice
• Then they said the words were true by
adducing the defence of justification
• They should have issued an apology
• Df liable – have to prove the truth of the
statement when ‘justification’ is proved.
And this they could not do.
 2. Fair Comment
• Words – consisting partly facts and partly
comments (expression of opinion)

• S. 9 Defamation Act
• To succeed in defence, Df must prove 4 things
- Ratus mesra s/b v. Shaikh Osman Majid
• 1. Words must be in the form of comment
• 2. It must be based on true facts
• 3. It must be fair and not malicious (Tjanting
handicraft)
• 4. It concerns issues of public interest (Mohd
Azwan Ali v SisTel M’sia)
-Example:

• if Df says that Pf is a convicted thief, it is a

statement of fact.

• Based on this fact If Df says that Pf is a bad

person, that is a comment.

• If Df says: Pf has stolen things and is

therefore untrustworthy, it is both a
statement of fact and a comment.
 Fairness of the comment

• Df’s honesty is the cardinal factor.

• The test of fairness is an objective one and once
Df shows that his comment is objectively fair in
the sense that any prudent man could honestly
have held the views expressed, the court will
presume that his comment is honest unless Pf
can plead and prove actual or express malice
(Tjanting Handicraft)
 -Matter of public interest

• Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large,

so that they may be legitimately interested in what is
going on, or what may happen to them or to others, then
it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is
entitled to make fair comment. (Mohd Azwan Ali)

• Eg. the behaviour of public figures, public officials and

institutions and even some private organizations.

• It also includes matters submitted for public criticism,

e.g., books, public exhibitions, theatrical performances,
newspapers, etc.
 3. Privilege
• Defence of which freedom of
communication is justified without fear of
an action of defamation.

• 2 types of privilege;
• 1. Absolute privilege – CL and Statute
• 2. Qualified privilege – CL and Statute
 3. Absolute Privilege –
common law
• When harmful words that are uttered by
the defendant about the Pf’s reputation are
not actionable, as the publication of these
words are protected by absolute privilege
• On certain occasions this protection is
necessary to cater for efficiency
• Eg: Words can be uttered without
apprehension of law suit, like in
Parliamentary debates, judicial proceeding
 cases
• Times Publishing v Sivadas
• Held : Absolute Priv for proceedings in
Parliament covers written opinions by the
public, made as a response to the issues
that are publicly made known. – Even if
the statements are malicious
• Meant for forums in which there can be no
fear or favour
 Absolute Privilege - statutory
• S. 11 DA

• Wong Chan Mew v. Hong Leong Finance

Bhd
• Held: Notice of a substituted service of
originating summons IS A ‘REPORT’ of
judicial proceedings
 4. Qualified Privilege
- common law
• The defence of Common law Q. P.
protects the maker of defamatory
statements on an occasion of privilege if
he had acted honestly without malice.

• BOP on defendant to prove that the words

said on an occasion of Privilege.

• If there is malice – defence will fail

• A privileged occasion is only when the Df
is entitled to say something which a
person not within privilege is not entitled to
say
• In common law there are few occassions
of privilege, but this is not exhaustive
• 1. Statements made between parties who
have a mutual interest over the subject
matter of communication

DF 3rd party

PF

common interest must be reciprocal

• Case:
• Surjit Kaur v Belinda Ghoi
• Appl. was cabin crew of MAS. She sued the
Resp. for libel
• Resp had written a letter on behalf of other crew
members to the VP and exec. VP of MAS
seeking Appl’s removal – they did not approve of
her supervision – fear, bad mouthed them,
backstabbed.
• Resp. relied on defence of QP
• 2. Statements made to fulfill a legal,
moral or social duty.

Legal, social and moral duty

DF 3rd party

Interest to receive communication

PF
 Cases:

• Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Dato’ Seri

Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad
• When Pf was dismissed from his political
position, he claimed that Df had spoken
maliciously and published to the national
and international journalist accusing him of
homosexuality.
• Df relied on 2 defences;
• Justification – it was already public knowledge
before the words were spoken by the Df, based
on true facts (info from the police)

• Qualified Privilege – As the PM, the Df was under

a legal, moral and social duty to inform the nation
as to why his Deputy PM was removed from office
(nation is a wider audience – justified as the
attack on Mahathir was public)
• Read :
• Dr Jenni Ibrahim v S. Pakianathan
• Jameel v Wall Street Journal

• This privilege even extends to

circumstances where CAP inform public
about certain goods – for public benefit
Dr Jenni Ibrahim v S. Pakianathan
• Pf replaced Df in a Help Centre
• Df wrote that she had appropriated money
• He sent the letter to Chief police officer,
secretary of the centre, copies to all
Directors and also to the Registrar of
Societies.
• Defence of QP failed.
• Jameel v Wall Street Journal (2006) HL
• Wall street Journal UK said online they
were monitoring accounts of Abdul Lateef
Jameel Group at the request of the US
Government to ensure there no terrorist link
• Pf sued claiming defamation for himself and
the company
• 5 people had read it in UK
• Trial Court and COA held in favour of Pf
• HOL – in favour of Df
• Note : Df never relied on defence of Justification
• However they pleaded QP –
• HOL said that the article was clearly of public interest
although the Df had breached the agreement between
US and Saudi Gov to keep the monitoring secret.
• The gathering and reporting was responsible and fair
(responsible journalism) – Reynolds Privilege and only
5 people had read it
 Reynolds Privilege
• Reynolds v Times Newspaper (2001) HOL
• Established the the Reynolds defence or privilege,
extending the traditional common law qualified privilege
to a wider audience on a matter of public interest.
• Here the Df needs to show that publication was made
responsibly establishing a duty-interest qualified
privilege and protect responsible journalism (altho not
confined only to journalist)
• Lord Nicholls in this case set out 10 factors or steps that
are to be taken the journalist for it to be considered as
responsible journalism.
 Reynolds 10 factors for responsible
journalism
• 1. The seriousness of the allegation.
• 2. The nature of the information, a matter of public concern.
• 3. The source of information.
• 4. The steps taken to verify the information.
• 5. The status of information.
• 6. The urgency of the matter.
• 7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant.
• 8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side
of the story.
• 9. The tone of the article.
• 10. The circumstances of the publication, including the
timing.37
• The Reynolds Privilege (RP) was first used in Anwar
Ibrahim v Mahathir Mohamad (2001) FC – FC refused
leave to appeal but agreed with COA
• Many Malaysian cases have used Reynold’s defence
following this case
• Recently endorsed by our Federal Court on Nov 16th 2015,
in the case of Dr. Syed Azman & Ors v Dato’ Seri Haji
Ahmad bin Said.
• However, the court said that RP has to be pleaded as a
separate defence and will not require the the need for the
court to consider express malice (as in the traditional
qualified privilege defence)
 Qualified Privilege-
Statutory
• S.12 Defamation Act
• ONLY MEANT FOR NEWSPAPERS AND
BROADCASTING (s 13)
• S. 12 (1) – Part I of the schedule
• S. 12 (2) – Part II of the schedule
• s. 12 (4) – common law privileges still in
use
• S. 12 (1) – if newspapers publish anything
stated in Part I , then it is qualified Priv,
except if it is proven malicious.

• S.12 (2) – If matters stated in Part II

already published and Pf asks the Df
newspaper to publish an explanation or
contradiction – if the Df does not, defence
of Q.P. will not avail to him
 5. Apology
• S. 10 Defamation Act
• Not full defence
• Only a mitigation
• Should be made before the
commencement of the action or soon
afterwards in case he did not have a
chance to do it earlier ( should be sincere
apology)
• 6. License

• Df alleges in his defence that the Pf had

given him Permission to publish the words
 Limitation
• S. 6 Limitation Act 1953
• Wong Chan Mew v. Hong Leong
• Pf brought action for defamation– 9.8.1994
• Df said limitation period expired (6 years)
- 2 dates involved
- 11.4.88 (date Hong Leong filed initial suit)
- 9.12.88 (date of substituted service in
newspaper)
 Abatement
• S. 8 (1) Civil Law Act
• Dato Seri Samy Vellu v Penerbit Sahabat
• Defamation is a personal action and dies with
the person when the person dies.
• actio personalis moritur cum persona.
[A personal action dies with the person].
• An action for the tort of defamation as purely
punitive and only later as compensatory
• Df died – defamation suit abated (others went
on)
 Remedies
• Damages
• Injunction
 REMEMBER !!!!
• The Prophet (peace be upon him) once asked his Companions: “Do
you know who is bankrupt?”

They replied: “The person among us who is bankrupt is the one who
possesses neither money nor provision.”

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The one who is bankrupt
from among my followers is he who comes on the Day of
Resurrection with prayer, charity, and fasting to his credit. However,
he had insulted this person, struck that person, and seized the
wealth of another, on account of which his good deeds will be taken
from him. Then, if his good deeds are exhausted, the sins of those
whom he wronged will be taken from them and foisted upon him and
then he will be cast into the Fire.” [Sahîh Muslim (2581)]