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 18 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 18 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 18 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    Can statistical data not premised on words be found to be defamatory in nature?

    Case:

    SUN MEDIA CORPORATION SDN BHD v. THE NIELSEN COMPANY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD [2020] 7 CLJ 751

    Brief Facts:

    • Sun Media Corporation Sdn Bhd (“Sun Media”) was the publisher of a newspaper called ‘the Sun’.

     

    • Nielsen Company (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (“Nielsen”) was known for its annual syndicated survey called the Nielsen Media Index or ‘NMI’.

     

    • The NMI survey was a wide ranging survey that sought to measure the consumption of different print and electronic media, viewership of satellite TV channels, as well as readership of, amongst others, newspapers.

     

    • The results of the survey were contractually intended only for Nielsen’s paid subscribers with contractual limitations as to disclosure.

     

    • Sun Media was not a subscriber and had obtained unauthorised access to the results of the survey.

     

    • The dispute between Sun Media and Nielsen centred on the NMI surveys for the years 2006 to 2010.

     

    • Sun Media asserted that the NMI surveys had, in that period, under-represented the readership numbers of the Sun. I.e. the NMI survey had inaccurately portrayed the Sun as being read by a lesser amount of people than was actually the case.

     

    • Sun Media contended that this under-representation of readership was the result of flaws in the design, methodology and conduct of the NMI survey by Nielsen.

     

    • Sun Media then launched this suit against Nielsen for negligence, defamation and malicious falsehood arising from the NMI survey for the years 2006 to 2010.

     

    • In response to the results of the NMI survey, Sun Media had published two (2) articles in the Sun newspaper in which Sun Media took issue with the accuracy of the NMI survey results (“Offending Articles”).

     

    • In response, Nielsen published a letter to its subscribers and customers which sought to address the issues raised by the Offending Articles and to allay the fears that its subscribers may have with respect to the reliability of its data and findings in their NMI survey.

     

    • Sun Media sued for, inter alia, damages to be assessed for the NMI survey as well as special damages for loss of profit from advertisements and a declaration that the readership data published in the NMI survey report from 2006 to 2010 in respect of the Sun newspaper was false, inaccurate and misleading.

     

    • The High Court judge dismissed Sun Media’s claim and Sun Media appealed to the Court of Appeal.

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL DISMISSED!

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis, amongst others, that:

     

    • The results of the NMI survey were contractually intended only for Nielsen’s paid subscribers with contractual limitations and restrictions to its disclosure. Sun Media who ceased to be a subscriber around the year 2000 had obtained unauthorised access to the results of the NMI survey in respect of the low readership of the Sun.

     

    • An action in defamation and malicious falsehood were also not proven. The data in the NMI survey, which was primarily statistical and not premised on words, was not found to have a defamatory meaning in itself or by innuendo. There was also no evidence of malice of Sun Media to sustain an action in malicious falsehood.
    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