MENAKA A/P T. VAZAPURY 1. ) DATO' NATARAJEN A/L MANOHRAN 2. ) DATO' SATISHKUMAR A/L MANOHRAN

MENAKA A/P T. VAZAPURY 1. ) DATO' NATARAJEN A/L MANOHRAN 2. ) DATO' SATISHKUMAR A/L MANOHRAN

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court findings: the Facebook posting and video were defamatory, referred specifically to the plaintiffs and were published to third parties; the defendant failed to prove justification or entitlement to qualified or absolute privilege and acted mala fide; accordingly the award of RM100,000 general damages to each plaintiff, injunction, apology order, 5% interest and costs was justified and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
NA-12BCY-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Menaka A/P T. Vazapury; Respondent / Plaintiff: Dato’ Natarajen A/L Manohran; Respondent / Plaintiff: Dato’ Satishkumar A/L Manohran
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 March 2024
Case Number
NA-12BCY-1-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Justification (truth), Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Fair Comment, Apology Order, Interest on Judgment, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Civil Procedure Injunctions Damages Libel Justification (truth) Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege +4 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Menaka A/P T. Vazapury

Appellant / Defendant

Dato’ Natarajen A/L Manohran

Respondent / Plaintiff

Dato’ Satishkumar A/L Manohran

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Judgment on Appeal (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned Facebook posting and video were defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the statements referred to the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether the statements were published to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court findings: the Facebook posting and video were defamatory, referred specifically to the plaintiffs and were published to third parties; the defendant failed to prove justification or entitlement to qualified or absolute privilege and acted mala fide; accordingly the award of RM100,000 general damages to each plaintiff, injunction, apology order, 5% interest and costs was justified and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Affirmed award of general damages RM100,000.00 to each plaintiff payable by the defendant