1. ) JASON JONATHAN LO 2. ) XXXX 1. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD 2. ) XXXX

1. ) JASON JONATHAN LO 2. ) XXXX 1. ) STAR MEDIA GROUP BERHAD 2. ) XXXX

The court found the 16 May article, the 25 May article and the Facebook post were reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory; the defendants failed to prove justification because they did not verify key material assertions and relied on hearsay and repetition of unproven allegations; qualified privilege (Reynolds) did not apply because the defendants failed responsible journalism factors (inadequate verification, unreasonable haste, failure to publish plaintiff's side); malice particulars were supported and would defeat privilege; plaintiff awarded damages and costs.

Citation
BA-23NCvC-32-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jason Jonathan Lo; 1st Defendant: Star Media Group Berhad; 2nd Defendant: Esther Ng Sek Yee; 3rd Defendant: Asohan Aryaduray; 4th Defendant: Tarrence Tan
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 November 2023
Case Number
BA-23NCvC-32-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Suit / Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendants found liable for defamation
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification, Qualified Privilege (reynolds), Repetition Rule, Malice, Responsible Journalism, Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Libel Justification Qualified Privilege (reynolds) Repetition Rule +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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Jonathan Lo

Plaintiff

Star Media Group Berhad

1st Defendant

Esther Ng Sek Yee

2nd Defendant

Asohan Aryaduray

3rd Defendant

Tarrence Tan

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation Suit / Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned publications referred to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the impugned publications were defamatory
  3. 3 Whether the defences of justification and qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) are available to the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the 16 May article, the 25 May article and the Facebook post were reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory; the defendants failed to prove justification because they did not verify key material assertions and relied on hearsay and repetition of unproven allegations; qualified privilege (Reynolds) did not apply because the defendants failed responsible journalism factors (inadequate verification, unreasonable haste, failure to publish plaintiff's side); malice particulars were supported and would defeat privilege; plaintiff awarded damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendants found liable for defamation

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for general damages of RM200000.00
  • Interest on the judgment sum at 5% per annum from date of judgment until realization