GOH KEAN PENG 1. ) FONG TAT YUAN 2. ) KOK GOC POI 3. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN MANSOR 4. ) INFINIC PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.

GOH KEAN PENG 1. ) FONG TAT YUAN 2. ) KOK GOC POI 3. ) MOHD FAIZAL BIN MANSOR 4. ) INFINIC PLASTIC TECHNOLOGY SDN. BHD.

The pleaded claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action in slander because only the 1st defendant was alleged to have spoken the impugned words, the plaintiff did not plead that the other defendants uttered the words nor pleaded vicarious liability; accordingly the claims...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-22NCvC-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Goh Kean Peng; 1st Defendant: Fong Tat Yuan; 2nd Defendant: Kok Goc Poi; 3rd Defendant: Mohd Faizal bin Mansor; 4th Defendant: Infinic Plastic Technology Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Case Number
PA-22NCvC-28-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (slander) / Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19 Rules of Court 2012; High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out granted as to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants; plaintiff's claim against those defendants struck out with costs (subject to allocatur).
Legal Topics
Slander, Striking Out Pleadings, Vicarious Liability, Pleadings and Particulars
Defamation Civil Procedure Company Law Tort Law Slander Striking Out Pleadings Vicarious Liability Pleadings and Particulars

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goh Kean Peng

Plaintiff

Fong Tat Yuan

1st Defendant

Kok Goc Poi

2nd Defendant

Mohd Faizal bin Mansor

3rd Defendant

Infinic Plastic Technology Sdn. Bhd.

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (slander) / Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19 Rules of Court 2012; High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff disclosed a reasonable cause of action for slander against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants
  2. 2 Whether the company (4th defendant) can be vicariously liable for slander allegedly spoken by an individual director (1st defendant)
  3. 3 Whether the claim against 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants disclosed no reasonable cause of action in slander because only the 1st defendant was alleged to have spoken the impugned words, the plaintiff did not plead that the other defendants uttered the words nor pleaded vicarious liability; accordingly the claims against those defendants were plainly unsustainable, frivolous and an abuse of process and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out granted as to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants; plaintiff's claim against those defendants struck out with costs (subject to allocatur).

Orders

  • Strike out the plaintiff's claim against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants under Order 18 r 19 ROC
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, subject to allocatur