KAMALRUDIN BIN SANI HAZMAN BIN MOHAMED HALID

KAMALRUDIN BIN SANI HAZMAN BIN MOHAMED HALID

Appeal allowed in part: High Court found appellant's Facebook post did not refer to or defame the respondent (appellant's post made to trace a scammer using a screenshot he reasonably believed was the scammer) and set aside the Sessions Court judgment; High Court found respondent's own publications were defamatory of the appellant and awarded RM25,000 in general damages to the appellant, ordered an apology and injunctions, and awarded costs of RM20,000 to the appellant (subject to taxation).

Citation
JA-12B-53-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (perayu): Kamalrudin bin Sani; Respondent (responden): Hazman bin Mohamed Halid
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 January 2024
Case Number
JA-12B-53-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal Judgment at High Court From Sessions Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment dated 20.6.2023 set aside; original plaintiff's claim dismissed; appellant's counterclaim allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Libel and Slander, Identification in Defamation, Justification (truth) Defence, Publication to Third Parties, Quantum of General Damages, Injunctions and Apologies
Source Language
Malay/English
Defamation Tort Civil Procedure Internet/media Law Libel and Slander Identification in Defamation Justification (truth) Defence Publication to Third Parties +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamalrudin bin Sani

Appellant (perayu)

Hazman bin Mohamed Halid

Respondent (responden)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal Judgment at High Court From Sessions Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's Facebook post was defamatory
  2. 2 Whether the impugned post referred to the respondent (identification)
  3. 3 Whether the post was published to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed in part: High Court found appellant's Facebook post did not refer to or defame the respondent (appellant's post made to trace a scammer using a screenshot he reasonably believed was the scammer) and set aside the Sessions Court judgment; High Court found respondent's own publications were defamatory of the appellant and awarded RM25,000 in general damages to the appellant, ordered an apology and injunctions, and awarded costs of RM20,000 to the appellant (subject to taxation).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment dated 20.6.2023 set aside; original plaintiff's claim dismissed; appellant's counterclaim allowed in part.

Orders

  • Set aside Sessions Court judgment dated 20.6.2023
  • Original plaintiff's defamation claim dismissed