Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 17 of 2021

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 17 of 2021
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 17 of 2021

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 6 December, 2021 | 0

    Can only parts of a statement be defamatory?

    Case:

    DATO SRI MOHAMAD SALLEH ISMAIL & ANOR v. NURUL IZZAH ANWAR & ANOR [2021] 4 CLJ 327

    Brief Facts:

    • National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd (“NFCorp”) was established in 2007 as the main integrator company of the National Feedlot Centre (“NFC”) to fulfill the Government’s policy and objective of increasing the national production of meat by reducing dependency on imported beef.

     

    • The Chairman and Director of NFCorp is Dato Sri Dr Mohammad bin Ismail (“the Chairman”).

     

    • In 2011, the operation and performance of the NFC project were audited by the Auditor General.

     

    • The Auditor General’s report highlighted the failures of the NFC Project and in particular, the weaknesses in the implementation of the said project.

     

    • This disclosure drew the public’s attention to NFCorp whereby concerns were raised as public funds were involved.

     

    • In a press conference concerning the development of KL Eco City, Nurul Izzah binti Anwar (“the Politician”), in her capacity as the Vice President of Pakatan Keadilan Rakyat and a Member of Parliament, made certain statements regarding the same issue based on the exposure of alleged misappropriation of funds.

     

    • Those statements were made based on the exposure of alleged misappropriation of funds of the National Feedlot Centre Project which statements were also made by PKR’s Director of Strategy, Mohd Rafizi Ramli.

     

    • On the same day, Malaysiakini TV published the statements made by the Politician which was viewed by the public at large.

     

    • The statement is reproduced below:-

     

    “Pendedahan terbaru pada hari ini oleh saudara Rafizi Ramli, bahawa dana awam yang disalurkan dalam Projek Fidlot Kebangsaan (National Feedlot Centre) telah digunakan untuk membeli lapan unit hartanah mewah di KL Eco City pada nilaian semasa yang mencecah RM12 juta mengundang pelbagai persoalan baru.

     

    Pertama, tindakan suami dan keluarga seorang menteri kanan yang dahulunya ahli parlimen kawasan terbabit membeli hartanah tersebut menimbulkan pertembungan kepetingan (conflict of interest) di antara tugas sebagai ahli parlimen dan kemahuan keluarga beliau. You would have access to the plans, development plans of a particular area if you’re member of parliament, dan ada kemungkinan, pengetahuan ini digunakan dalam usaha pembelian oleh suami menteri kanan tersebut.”

     

    • The Chairman and NFCorp then filed a suit to claim damages for defamation.

     

    • The High Court dismissed the claim as the learned judge found that an ordinary reasonable reader would not find the impugned statements to be defamatory of the plaintiffs. It is clear from reading the whole statement, that was given by the Politician was primarily addressed at Datuk Seri Shahrizat, the wife of the Chairman.

     

    • The Court of Appeal also affirmed the findings of the High Court.

     

    • The Chairman and NFCorp appealed to the Federal Court.

     

    • They submitted that the courts below failed to consider separately the effect of the impugned statements.

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION – APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • The Federal Court found that the determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of such a statement must relate to the entire publication, and to the impression created in the mind of the ordinary reasonable man upon reading or viewing the whole statement.

     

    • The Court assessed that such person will not pay any attention to the alleged defamatory manner complained of which was in effect one sentence in a very long press statement and instead be focused only on the major part of the press statement.

     

    • Hence, the major part of the statement has ameliorated the effect of the subject matter of the complaint which was that one sentence in the statement.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil