Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Plaintiffs are businessmen in Sarawak, whilst the Defendant is a tour agent and a junket who made arrangements for gamblers to gamble at casinos.
  
  
• In December 2014, the Plaintiffs and two others travelled to Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to gamble at the Naga Casino.
  
  
• In January 2015, the Plaintiffs discovered a Facebook post by an account with the username “Ani Ta.”
  
  
• The post showed a photo of a newspaper ad, supposedly from a Chinese-language newspaper (Sin Chew Daily News), and the ad contained the Plaintiffs’ photos, names, and passport numbers and said they owed money to the Defendant’s company. It warned them to settle the debt within a week or face legal action.
  
  
• The Plaintiffs believed that the ad and posts were defamatory, the statements were false and harmed their personal and professional image, both locally and internationally, and this caused them to suffer emotional distress, embarrassment, and financial losses.
  
  
• As a result, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant for defamation.
  
  
• The Defendant responded by counterclaiming and alleged that the First Plaintiff owed him a large sum of money in credit and rebates from their time gambling at the Naga Casino.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC rejected both the Plaintiffs’ defamation claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim for unpaid gambling credit.
  
  
• The HC acknowledged that the Plaintiffs’ photos and personal information were published on Facebook and WeChat, but the Plaintiffs failed to provide convincing evidence that these accounts belonged to the Defendant or his agents.
  
  
• The HC found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the Defendant (or his agents) had distributed or published copies of the alleged defamatory advertisement in the “Sin Chew Daily News” in Bintulu, Sarawak, between 17.01.2015 and 28.02.2015.
  
  
• The HC found that due to the lack of sufficient evidence linking the Defendant to the publication of the defamatory statements, the Plaintiffs failed to prove the third key element of defamation that the defendant had indeed published the statements to third parties.
  
  
• Moreover, the HC dismissed the Defendant’s claim for the recovery of two lines of credit and a refund of rolling rebates because these claims were deemed to be gambling-related contracts and thus illegal and void under Malaysian law.
  
  
• The HC concluded that neither party had proven their claims on a balance of probabilities and dismissed both the Plaintiffs’ defamation claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim.
  
  
• Dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA) – Plaintiffs’ Appeal dismissed and Defendant’s Appeal allowed

• The COA found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Defendant was responsible for publishing the defamatory statements.
  
  
• The COA found no evidence that the Facebook or WeChat accounts used to publish the statements belonged to the Defendant or his agents.
  
  
• The Plaintiffs did not even check with the newspaper to find out who was the one who put up the advertisement.
  
  
• The COA agreed with the High Court that the Plaintiffs had not proven that the Defendant was responsible for publishing or republishing the defamatory statements and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal.
  
  
• COA then found that the Defendant had proven their counter claim for the debt pursuant to lines of credit.
  
  
• The COA determined that the credit lines given were loans, and not gambling wagers, and thus did not fall under a gambling-related contract.
  
  
• The loan was used to obtain gambling chips.
  
  
• Any gambling debt was between the Plaintiff and the casino.
  
  
• What the Defendant provided was merely a loan.
  
  
• The COA held that the HC judge wrongly characterised the Defendant’s claim as a recovery of gambling debts.
  
  
• The COA clarified that the credit provided by the Defendant was in the form of loans that the Plaintiff used to obtain gambling chips, making it a financial arrangement rather than a gambling contract.
  
  
• The COA overturned the HC judge’s decision, concluding that there was a valid oral agreement between the parties regarding the credit lines and rebates and allowed the Defendant’s appeal.