PRAKASH A/L MANIAM @ SUBRAMANIAM PUVENESWARAN A/L ARUMUGAM

PRAKASH A/L MANIAM @ SUBRAMANIAM PUVENESWARAN A/L ARUMUGAM

The Sessions Court's factual findings that the defendant made defamatory statements to a third party were reasonably open on the evidence; the defendant failed to prove justification and could not establish qualified privilege because the publication was made with express malice; damages of RM100,000 (general and exemplary) and declaratory relief as to wrongful removal were appropriate; there was no basis for appellate interference, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
BA-12B-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: PRAKASH A/L MANIAM @ SUBRAMANIAM; Respondent / Plaintiff: PUVENESWARAN A/L ARUMUGAM
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Case Number
BA-12B-3-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Justification (truth), Qualified Privilege, Malice, Publication, Damages (general and Exemplary), Declaratory Relief, Appellate Review Standards
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Justification (truth) Qualified Privilege Malice Publication Damages (general and Exemplary) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRAKASH A/L MANIAM @ SUBRAMANIAM

Appellant / Defendant

PUVENESWARAN A/L ARUMUGAM

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made defamatory statements to a third party
  2. 2 Whether the statements were published and defamatory as to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defence of justification (truth) was established

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court's factual findings that the defendant made defamatory statements to a third party were reasonably open on the evidence; the defendant failed to prove justification and could not establish qualified privilege because the publication was made with express malice; damages of RM100,000 (general and exemplary) and declaratory relief as to wrongful removal were appropriate; there was no basis for appellate interference, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sessions Court judgment dated 20 December 2022 upheld