LINAWATY BINTI ASSIM (NO K/P : 630218-12-5782) SAIDATUL HANUM BINTI SAZALI (NO. K/P : 850818-06-5654)

LINAWATY BINTI ASSIM (NO K/P : 630218-12-5782) SAIDATUL HANUM BINTI SAZALI (NO. K/P : 850818-06-5654)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the defendant's social‑media publications were defamatory (they referred to the plaintiff and were published to third parties), the defendant failed to establish justification or fair comment because publications were made with malice and selective editing/misrepresentation, the defendant did not acquire ownership of the consigned bag and deposit was non‑refundable under the seller's terms; plaintiff proved reputational damage and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
WA-12BCY-1-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Perayu: Linawaty binti Assim; Respondent / Plaintif: Saidatul Hanum binti Sazali
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 September 2021
Case Number
WA-12BCY-1-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Defamation Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court; Judgment on Appeal
Legal Topics
Libel, Publication on Social Media, Justification (truth), Fair Comment / Qualified Privilege, Malice, Damages, Consignment Sale, Transfer of Property
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Tort Contract Sale of Goods Internet/social Media Law Libel Publication on Social Media Justification (truth) +5 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linawaty binti Assim

Appellant / Perayu

Saidatul Hanum binti Sazali

Respondent / Plaintif

Procedural Posture

Defamation Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Sessions Court to High Court; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Instagram and Facebook posts dated 20.11.2019 were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the impugned statements referred to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the statements were published to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: the defendant's social‑media publications were defamatory (they referred to the plaintiff and were published to third parties), the defendant failed to establish justification or fair comment because publications were made with malice and selective editing/misrepresentation, the defendant did not acquire ownership of the consigned bag and deposit was non‑refundable under the seller's terms; plaintiff proved reputational damage and the appeal was dismissed.