Loh Pek Mee Eyerlyn Khaw Mei Ling

Loh Pek Mee Eyerlyn Khaw Mei Ling

The High Court found the 1st Impugned Publication was capable of and in fact defamatory and was published to third parties, but the defendant discharged the shifted burden by proving the substance of the allegations was true as she repeated HR information and acted on a privileged occasion; there was no malice, so qualified privilege applied and defendant was protected.

Citation
BA-12B-46-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Loh Pek Mee; Respondent/defendant: Everlyn Khaw Mei Ling
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Case Number
BA-12B-46-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court (appellate Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed insofar as it related to the 1st Impugned Publication; words found defamatory but defendant protected by justification and qualified privilege (no malice).
Legal Topics
Justification (truth) Defence, Qualified Privilege, Publication Element, Burden of Proof, Malice
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Tort Employment Law Evidence Justification (truth) Defence Qualified Privilege Publication Element Burden of Proof +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loh Pek Mee

Appellant/plaintiff

Everlyn Khaw Mei Ling

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court (appellate Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Impugned Publication was defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the publication referred to and was published about the plaintiff to third parties
  3. 3 Whether defendant established justification (truth) defence on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found the 1st Impugned Publication was capable of and in fact defamatory and was published to third parties, but the defendant discharged the shifted burden by proving the substance of the allegations was true as she repeated HR information and acted on a privileged occasion; there was no malice, so qualified privilege applied and defendant was protected.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed insofar as it related to the 1st Impugned Publication; words found defamatory but defendant protected by justification and qualified privilege (no malice).

Orders

  • Dismissed Plaintiff's appeal with respect to the 1st Impugned Publication.