TAN SRI DAVID CHIU TAT-CHEONG SEEMA ELIZABETH ISOY

TAN SRI DAVID CHIU TAT-CHEONG SEEMA ELIZABETH ISOY

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned WhatsApp message was defamatory because, although constituent facts about past arrests and judicial findings against Mayland were true, the deliberate omission of the plaintiff's acquittal and the juxtaposition of those facts created a false overall impression that the plaintiff was dishonest and a fraudster; the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment failed due to that misleading 'half-truth' and malice; plaintiff entitled to damages, interest, injunction and costs.

Citation
W-02(W)-1320-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong; Respondent / Defendant: Seema Elizabeth Isoy
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
W-02(W)-1320-07/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court After Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 23 June 2021 set aside; judgment entered for Plaintiff (Appellant).
Legal Topics
Half Truth, Justification (truth) Defence, Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Malice, Damages, Injunction
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Strata/property Law Half Truth Justification (truth) Defence Qualified Privilege Fair Comment +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong

Appellant / Plaintiff

Seema Elizabeth Isoy

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of a 'half-truth' can constitute a false statement actionable in defamation
  2. 2 Whether the impugned WhatsApp message was defamatory of the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned WhatsApp message was defamatory because, although constituent facts about past arrests and judicial findings against Mayland were true, the deliberate omission of the plaintiff's acquittal and the juxtaposition of those facts created a false overall impression that the plaintiff was dishonest and a fraudster; the defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment failed due to that misleading 'half-truth' and malice; plaintiff entitled to damages, interest, injunction and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 23 June 2021 set aside; judgment entered for Plaintiff (Appellant).

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Plaintiff in the sum of RM100000.00
  • Interest on damages at 5% per annum from 23 June 2021 until full payment