UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD MALAYSIAN-GERMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

UTUSAN MELAYU (MALAYSIA) BERHAD MALAYSIAN-GERMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

The court found the article together with the plaintiff's promotional image sufficiently referred to the plaintiff; defendants failed to adduce any evidence to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege and thus cannot avail those defenses; adverse inferences were drawn under s114 Evidence Act due to defendants' failure to call witnesses; leave under s451 Companies Act 2016 given retrospectively does not invalidate the earlier trial; accordingly the appellant's challenge failed and the lower court judgment was affirmed with costs.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-89-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad; Respondent/plaintiff: Malaysia German Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 June 2022
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-89-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Vicarious Liability, Leave Under S451 Companies Act 2016, Adverse Inference S114 Evidence Act 1950
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Media Law Company Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Libel Qualified Privilege Vicarious Liability +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Utusan Melayu (Malaysia) Berhad

Appellant/defendant

Malaysia German Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff had a valid cause of action for libel arising from the article and image
  2. 2 Whether the article together with the event image referred to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defendant employer is vicariously liable for employee publication

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the article together with the plaintiff's promotional image sufficiently referred to the plaintiff; defendants failed to adduce any evidence to establish justification, fair comment or qualified privilege and thus cannot avail those defenses; adverse inferences were drawn under s114 Evidence Act due to defendants' failure to call witnesses; leave under s451 Companies Act 2016 given retrospectively does not invalidate the earlier trial; accordingly the appellant's challenge failed and the lower court judgment was affirmed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed