Melawangi Sdn Bhd Tiow Weng Theong

Melawangi Sdn Bhd Tiow Weng Theong

The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal erred in finding the plaintiff had agreed to place the e-mail in Part A; contemporaneous trial notes show the plaintiff sought to move the e-mail to Part B and disputed its placement in Part A, so the Court of Appeal’s factual premise was wrong. The High Court was correct to admit and consider additional allegedly defamatory statements pleaded in paragraph 13 and to proceed to judgment; accordingly the Court of Appeal’s orders were set aside and the High Court judgment restored.

Citation
02(f)-10-02/2019 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Melawangi Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Defendant: Tiow Weng Theong
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Case Number
02(f)-10-02/2019 (B) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Final Appeal — Federal Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal orders set aside; High Court judgment restored
Legal Topics
Agreed Bundle of Documents (part A/part B), Defence of Justification (truth), Qualified Privilege, Pleading Scope, Appellate Intervention, Rules of Court 2012 Order 34
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Judicial Review Company/property Law Agreed Bundle of Documents (part A/part B) Defence of Justification (truth) 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melawangi Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Plaintiff

Tiow Weng Theong

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Final Appeal — Federal Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether placement of a document in Part A of an agreed bundle constitutes acceptance of authenticity and truth of contents
  2. 2 Whether documents in Part A require proof of truth such that defence of justification is established
  3. 3 Whether defendant can rely on placement in Part A to prove justification in a defamation action

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal erred in finding the plaintiff had agreed to place the e-mail in Part A; contemporaneous trial notes show the plaintiff sought to move the e-mail to Part B and disputed its placement in Part A, so the Court of Appeal’s factual premise was wrong. The High Court was correct to admit and consider additional allegedly defamatory statements pleaded in paragraph 13 and to proceed to judgment; accordingly the Court of Appeal’s orders were set aside and the High Court judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal orders set aside; High Court judgment restored

Orders

  • Allow appeal with costs
  • Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal