XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court misdirected itself by labeling a private defamation action as public interest litigation without submissions or proper basis, thereby unlawfully depriving the successful defendants of costs; appellate interference was warranted and the successful defendants are entitled to costs, fixed at RM60,000 each inclusive of costs below and leave application.

Citation
W-02(W)-1754-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Khalid Bin Abd Samad; Appellant: KINITV Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent: Dato' Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman; Defendant: The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
Court
W
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 October 2023
Case Number
W-02(W)-1754-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Arising From Defamation Suit) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court After Trial
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court order insofar as it declined to award costs set aside
Legal Topics
Order 59 Rules of Court 2012, Discretion to Award Costs, Public Interest Litigation Test, Defences in Defamation (justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege)
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Law Public Interest Litigation Order 59 Rules of Court 2012 Discretion to Award Costs Public Interest Litigation Test Defences in Defamation (justification, Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege)

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Bin Abd Samad

Appellant

KINITV Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant

Dato' Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman

Respondent

The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Arising From Defamation Suit) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to award costs to successful defendants
  2. 2 Whether the defamation action constituted public interest litigation justifying departure from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 Whether the Judge unlawfully exercised discretion by taking into account irrelevant matters and failing to give reasons for depriving successful parties of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court misdirected itself by labeling a private defamation action as public interest litigation without submissions or proper basis, thereby unlawfully depriving the successful defendants of costs; appellate interference was warranted and the successful defendants are entitled to costs, fixed at RM60,000 each inclusive of costs below and leave application.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court order insofar as it declined to award costs set aside

Orders

  • High Court order to the extent that costs were not awarded is set aside
  • Respondent is ordered to pay costs of RM60,000.00 for each appeal (each awarded as costs here and below inclusive of the costs of the leave application); orders subject to allocator