ABDUL AZEEZ BIN ABDUL RAHIM Lim Guan Eng

ABDUL AZEEZ BIN ABDUL RAHIM Lim Guan Eng

The Court held the respondent’s publications, in context and in their entirety, bore a Chase Level 1 imputation that the appellant was guilty; the respondent failed to prove justification at that level because he relied only on a Notice of Demand and an arrest of a proxy without verification and published hastily; fair comment and qualified privilege also failed due to statements of fact, malice/indifference to truth and failure of responsible journalism; accordingly the High Court finding of justification was set aside and damages and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Citation
P-02(NCvC)(W)-1892-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Abdul Azeez bin Abdul Rahim; Respondent: Lim Guan Eng
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 August 2023
Case Number
P-02(NCvC)(W)-1892-12/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Defamation / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed in Part)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court finding that respondent had established justification set aside; appellant awarded general damages and costs
Legal Topics
Justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Chase Levels/lucas Box, Damages, Responsible Journalism
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Tort Media Law Administrative Law Election Related Speech Justification Fair Comment Qualified Privilege +3 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Azeez bin Abdul Rahim

Appellant

Lim Guan Eng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Defamation / Court of Appeal Judgment (appeal Allowed in Part)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defamatory statements bear the correct Chase Level imputation
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved the defence of justification
  3. 3 Whether the respondent could rely on fair comment or qualified privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the respondent’s publications, in context and in their entirety, bore a Chase Level 1 imputation that the appellant was guilty; the respondent failed to prove justification at that level because he relied only on a Notice of Demand and an arrest of a proxy without verification and published hastily; fair comment and qualified privilege also failed due to statements of fact, malice/indifference to truth and failure of responsible journalism; accordingly the High Court finding of justification was set aside and damages and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court finding that respondent had established justification set aside; appellant awarded general damages and costs

Orders

  • Set aside the High Court’s finding that the respondent proved justification
  • Award general damages to the appellant in the sum of RM250000.00 payable by the respondent